' ' Good if science says that all effect has one causa' ' Reply: Comou with fallacies there, as can SCIENCE say something? it explains this to me? Modern science is based nso coneitos of the scientist and philosopher Karl Popper, from there popperiana science. it looks for to inquire itself of the concepts OF STUDY of the popperiana cinecia. Continuing, science is impossible TO SAY something, NOT ITS IGNORANT, thinks a little, who makes any affirmation is not science and yes the SCIENTIST, from there lacks of the sources of such affirmation, therefore this its ' ' argumento' ' it was I invalidate, therefore the CINECIA DOES NOT SAY NOTHING TO START, AND SECOND THAT ALL EFFECT HAS a CAUSE, it is uam affirmation invalidates, since the senhorito did not give the sources of such affirmation said ' ' Good if science says that all effect has one causa' '. It did not say this, what you made again you were a fallacy: I appeal to the anonymous authority: To make affirmations appealing the authorities without citing source. Former: ' ' The connoisseurs say that the best way to prevent a nuclear war is to be prepared for ela.' ' in its in case that n were well worse, spoke that science affirmed that all effect has a cause. It looks at I feel very in saying that leaving from there, a GRANDA PART OF ITS THESIS SERA INVALIDATES. ' ' we have that to admit that according to science the universe is the effect of an explosion of a particle and everything of it if it originated, that is, this particle is the cause and the universe passes then to be cause and effect of its evolution, but then where this the cause of the cause? Who is the cause of the first particle and before it and before? Who is the cause of all the causes? Unhappyly science does not explain but the atheists do not accept that science is very limited. .
- More Expensive Product Recalls