1. Millise meetodi valis Descartes tõeuurimiseks? On see Sinu hinnangul sobiv meetod? 2. Mil moel peab Descartes võimalikuks kahelda meeltes? 3. Milles ei ole võimalik Descartes'i arvates kahelda, kas nõustud tema mõttekäiguga? 4. Descartes'i mina-definitsioon + Sinu kriitika. 5. Descartes'i tingimused mistahes lause tõsikindluseks. 6. Descartes'i mõttekäik täiuslikkusest (jumalast) vajadusel Sinu kriitika. 7. Mis alusel peab Descartes tavamõistuslikke arvamusi, nt. kehade olemasolust, vähem kindlaks ju Jumala ja hinge olemasolu? 8. Kuidas aitab mõistus teha vahet teadmisel ja pettusel, unenäol ja tegelikkusel? 1.Meetod, mille Descartes tõeuurimiseks valis oli selline, kus ta arvas, et peab tegema kõik vastupidi ja absoluutselt väärana heitma kõrvale kõ...
all are Absolute Truth. Yet from the perceivers' perspective they are perceived at different levels of completeness. Material world is complete Theist and atheists have arguing theists say there is so much right it the world, look how the clouds are forming and rain is distributed. Atheists say there is so much wrong in this world rain is falling also to the oceans where is already so much water, what's the point? One has to see the design in connection with the purpose. Evidents of design are undeniable in the world. When we say that smt happens automatically it is not the proof that there is no designer existing. Automatic means that no direct intervention of the creator or designer is seen from observer's perspective. Yet control can be delegated or invisible. Lord has made this world this way that once made it will go on itself. That is the perfect management which requires minimal or no management.
annaabi.ee 
