...Pascal vs Descartes Paper Pascal’s argument is fallible because he reaches the conclusion that we should “wager” God’s existence, rather than coming up with “proof” by using deductive reasoning like Descartes provides in his argument. These early 17th century philosophers both provided writings defending the validity of the Christian religion and of God’s existence. After the Protestant Reformation of 1517, the Catholic Church’s sanctity was questioned. Different religions sprouted across Europe and citizens of Western Europe began questioning religion itself and the existence of God. Blaise Pascal and Rene Descartes each claimed to have a strong belief in Catholicism (or a denomination of), and because of this strong belief, they sought to defend the validity of the existence of God. Pascal wrote a collection of aphorisms which he started to revise into a writing he would call the “Apology of Christian Religion”. However, Pascal died before he was able to complete it. In Pascal’s Pensees (his writings were collected and organized in the 19th century and 20th century), Pascal systematically dismantles the notion that we, the people, can trust reason to validate God’s Existence. Pascal rambles on about what “we” can’t do to prove God, instead of finding his own proof of God’s existence. His approach to persuade us into believing God is to use mathematical equations and odds to reach the conclusion that it is worth it to a person to wager on God’s existence. Descartes on the other...
Words: 316 - Pages: 2
...E Leo Whitworth Jr. Dr. C Fred Smith Apologetics 500-D01-LUO April 1, 2015 * What do you think is the best apologetic method and defend your view. * The relationship between faith and reason * A comparison between the evidentialist, presuppositionalist, and experimentalist strategies. In my view, the best argument in apologetics is the evidentialist method. This method argues that the most significant historical events in Christianity- particular the resurrection of Jesus are matters that can be established through proper historical argumentation, even apart from any prior arguments for the existence of God. Instead of trying to prove the existence of God through some form of rational proof, the evidentialist attempts to prove the existence of God through the truth of scripture and then using that truth to prove the existence and nature of God. To do this the evidentialist has to successfully defend his understanding of past events and his interpretation of texts and historical theories and ideology. The evidentialist also assumes a shared view of experiences, scientific theories, and the general rules of logic when engaging a skeptic, and there has to be some shared study and common ground of the nature and philosophy with the unbeliever to have a meaningful discussion. One of the advantages of being an evidentialist you can argue both for theism and for Christian theism at the same time without recourse to an elaborate natural theology. For instance...
Words: 1096 - Pages: 5
...support of a conclusion. Thus, the first step in writing a good essay is to be clear of the conclusion, i.e. the claim that you are going to be defending. It should be possible to present the claim in no more than a sentence or two that tells the reader what it is that you will argue, and why and how. This is what is known as a thesis statement, and your essay outline should begin with this. A good thesis statement should: • Be no longer than a sentence or two • It should be something philosophically controversial (though not necessarily sensationalist), in that it should not merely be a statement of fact, nor of style, nor of context. • It should include a reference to the target idea or text. Examples: “Pascal’s (1632-62) famed defence of religious faith by appeal to the utility of believing in God rather than the truth of the belief is unsatisfactory since, although it professes to start from a position of metaphysical ignorance, in practice it smuggles in unwarranted assumptions about the utility of believing in the existence of God”. “Pascal argues that the practical advantage of believing in God outweighs the disadvantages, although this has been challenged by many critics who contend that the argument only succeeds if one conflates pragmatic reasons for believing with epistemic reasons for believing. In this essay, I shall defend Pascal from this...
Words: 981 - Pages: 4
...“It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principle vice of religion.” - Richard Dawkins Many other philosophers and professionals of academia criticize religion for its reliance on faith. More specifically, they condemn the act of using faith to reason –rationalizing actions based on something other than evidence or proof. My argument does not necessarily confine itself to the focus frame of religion, but more generally, I argue that it is justified to form beliefs that are not grounded in sufficient evidence. I will use my initial motivation for this topic as an appropriate introduction for this argument. Throughout the semester I was genuinely intrigued by the atheistic arguments of astounding philosophers –most notable and influential on my own beliefs were the ideas of Hume, Dawkins, Clifford, and even Nietzsche. In light of this and the logically superior option to argue against the existence of God, … I did. In fact, I was four pages into what was shaping out to be the best paper I’ve written since my secondary school thesis on underwater basket weaving. At some point, however, I could not continue writing. I had no passion, desire, or any sense of purpose while trying to grind out...
Words: 1528 - Pages: 7
...Shenyu Wang PHL101 Summery Essay 3 7/22/2015 I think that God does not exist. if God exists, if it is material, it should be seen. But I have never seen it before. if God is immaterial, that everyone can create their own God in their hearts; if God had not the slightest effect on the material world, he exists only in the spirit of the believer, this means that God does not exist in this world, like a young man, he does not like all the girls, and the girls fall in love with his own spirit, so the presence of the girl in the end does not exist? there is no reliable evidence that the existence God, therefore God does not exist. Evil exists, because the world is not peaceful, many people still suffer from war and disease. suffered physical pain is evidence of the existence of evil. at the same time, there is evil in the human, many of whom are followers of God, if God exists, then he should be good, he should do something to stop the war, or to prevent a war. he should go to cure people of illness, he should punish the wicked person. but we do not see God do these things. war still occur from time to time, the doctors treating the patients, the wicked persons are punished by law, majorities people make their own efforts to live better. When I finished reading, I think the same as i did before. my biggest problem of the existence is that if God exists, why is there evil? God is moral, he should avoid and stop the evil. philosophers to explain the existence of God are inadequately...
Words: 715 - Pages: 3
...what your position because no matter where you go there will always be somebody to tell you you’re wrong for what you believe in. During the next few paragraphs I will discuss a few different philosopher’s ideas by talking about the side of the fence, if either, they fall into and their views about the other side. The three philosophers I will talk about are Blaise Pascal, W.K. Clifford, and William James and their views on the whole believing in God thing. Blaise Pascal was for the idea of believing in God. Pascal’s thought were that “having a belief in God was useful even if not supported by the available evidence (Pascal).” His theory basically stated that if “someone fully devoted their life to the ways of Christianity they would soon believe what Christians believe” (Pascal). I personally don’t like this idea because I feel that this is, basically, brainwashing yourself. The next philosopher William James had theory that was along the same line as Pascal’s. He thought if people had the options between two really appealing choices the people have the right to act as their passion decides (James, 1896).” James thought it was pointless for us to permit the fear of holding a false belief to prevent us from losing the benefits of believing what may be true. In short, he thought it was better off to believe (James, 1896). This sounds like an ultimatum is a crazy way. I don’t see how scaring yourself to believe in something seems justifiable. The last philosopher I am...
Words: 530 - Pages: 3
...this earth can answer. The argument that states that one should believe in God even if there is a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, is the unthinkable anguish of spending the rest of eternity in hell. Where there would be no good thing since the person(s) had their good thing(s) while living. (p52) It is more prudent that individual(s) should take their chances to believe. It is in the nature of man human to be curious about many things with which there was no absolutes as how the situation would turn out. Let us then consider, withal our imperfections what the explores were able to do, they made the choice to wager and won what then can we today learn from our history? Therefore, I humbly submit to you why my views agree with Blaise Paschal. Who is the author of “The Wager” gives us some very perplexing questions that one must put a lot of time and consideration into before offering up an answer? I sincerely hope to convince you should there be any doubt or should you be on that fence swaying back and forth that I believe in a superior God my personal beliefs, go along with Blaise Pascal to show within a reasonable manner that there is a supreme God, who is incipient Omniscience, Omnipotence and Omnipresent. We are truly never alone. A God, who shows his supreme ineffable love for his creations whom...
Words: 1276 - Pages: 6
...mathematician, a physicist, philosopher, and a Roman Catholic. The Libertines were a group of people during Pascal’s time that regarded reason as their guide with respect to religion. In Pascal’s Wager, a piece that he wrote to the Libertines, he explains not why God is real, but why we should believe in God. The Libertines disagreed by saying, “Since it is impossible to know if there is a God, then there is no reason for me to choose one way or the other.” (101) Pascal refuted this argument by stating that we, as humans, must make a choice to either believe or not to believe in God. Being agnostic is not plausible, Pascal states, since the actions of being agnostic are the same as being atheist. Pascal then states how believing in God is the only option that makes sense because if God does not exist, then there is no loss. However, if God does exist, then we either gain eternal happiness for believing, or an infinite amount of time living an infinitely horrible...
Words: 1713 - Pages: 7
...Pascal Triangle Pascal Triangle Josue Tagle ITT-Tech Pascal's Triangle One of the most interesting Number Patterns is Pascal's Triangle (named after Blaise Pascal, a famous French Mathematician and Philosopher).To build the triangle, start with "1" at the top, then continue placing numbers below it in a triangular pattern. Each number is the two numbers above it added together (except for the edges, which are all "1").(Here I have highlighted that 1+3 = 4) | | Patterns Within the Triangle | | DiagonalsThe first diagonal is, of course, just "1"s, and the next diagonal has the counting numbers (1,2,3, etc). The third diagonal has the triangular numbers (The fourth diagonal, not highlighted, has the tetrahedral numbers.) | Odds and EvensIf you color the Odd and Even numbers, you end up with a pattern the same as the Sierpinski Triangle | | | | | Horizontal SumsWhat do you notice about the horizontal sums? Is there a pattern? Isn't it amazing! It doubles each time (powers of 2). | Exponents of 11Each line is also the powers (exponents) of 11: * 110=1 (the first line is just a "1") * 111=11 (the second line is "1" and "1") * 112=121 (the third line is "1", "2", "1") * etc! | | | But what happens with 115 ? Simple! The digits just overlap, like this: The same thing happens with 116 etc. | | | SquaresFor the second diagonal, the square of a number is equal to the sum of the numbers next to it and below both of those.Examples:...
Words: 1152 - Pages: 5
...Sign in to wikis by wetpaint MDM4U1@FMG Home Discussions Photos Videos News Updates Members Sign in or Report page Share Share this 6.3 Probabilities Using Counting TechniquesThis is a featured page In a number of different situations, it is not easy to determine the outcomes of an event by counting them individually. Alternatively, counting techniques that involve permutations and combinations are helpful when calculating theoretical probabilities. This section will examine methods for determining theoretical probabilities of successive or multiple events. Permutation? or Combination? The following flow chart will help determine which formula is suitable for any given question. By simply following a series of "yes" or "no" questions, the appropriate formula can be determined. Flow Ex. 1 - Using Permutations: 6.3 Probabilities Using Counting Techniques - MDM4U1@FMG 6.3 Probabilities Using Counting Techniques - MDM4U1@FMG The specific outcome of Mike starting in lane 1 and the other two starting in lane 2 and lane 3 can only happen one way, so n(A) = 1. Therefore, 6.3 Probabilities Using Counting Techniques - MDM4U1@FMG The probability that Mike will start in the first lane next to his other brothers in lane 2 and 3 is approximately 0.00101. Ex. 1(a) - Using Permutations: Exactly Three People form a line at a grocery store. What is the probability that they will line up in descending order...
Words: 1110 - Pages: 5
...Can One Chose to Believe? Many followers of western religion find it hard to understand why others do not believe as they do. Take, for instance, the argument of Pascal's wager (Pensees pg. 151-153). Why would a person not chose to accept and follow God when there is everything to gain and nothing to lose? All one must do according to the Christian bible (NIV) is, "believe in the Lord Jesus, and be saved..." (Acts 16:31). Western religion emphasizes the importance of choosing to believe in and embrace God, but there may be an underlying and critical flaw in this collective religious conviction; does one actually choose to believe something, or is it merely an involuntary outlook based on what we perceive to be true from life experience? Belief can also be examined in everyday life. It is all around and is used for every decision and in every thought. Borchert's Encyclopedia of Philosophy exemplifies the ulterior complexities of belief that many people are not conscious of; belief is "...a species of propositional attitude distinguished by having the mind-to-world direction of fit" (Borchert). A propositional attitude is simply a psychological mode paired with psychological content. In the case of belief, belief itself would be the psychological mode, and what one believes would be the content. The "mind-to-world direction of fit" refers to belief's "...aim to represent how the world is independently"(Borchert). With a verbal definition of belief, it is also necessary...
Words: 862 - Pages: 4
...that we don’t have a good reason to believe in one-way or the other (Slick). There are many arguments for the existence of God, but they all have objections to the premises offered. Some believers argue that if we cannot prove God really exists then we are entitled to believe that he does. On the other hand a theist could point out that if we cannot prove God does exist, we are entitled to believe he does not. There is no way we can prove the existence of God, but there are few arguments that give reasons why we should believe in God, but unfortunately they all have objections to them. Two arguments trying to prove the existence of god, and are not completely successful, are the teleological arguments, the cosmological arguments, and Pascal’s wager. The teleological argument argues that there is an order in the universe, but order cannot exist without design for which this means that there must be a designer, God (Engel). According to Philosopher Paley he believes that just like a watch needs a watchmaker to build it, then everything else needs a designer. For example the eye cannot be put together by human engineering, which gives proof that there must be a Divine Designer responsible for all of the design we observe in nature. __________________________________________________________ WE WRITE YOUR RESEARCH PAPERS ON GOD TOPICS! __________________________________________________________ Often the Teleological Argument is formulated as an induction: 1. In all things...
Words: 1354 - Pages: 6
...CRUZ, MA. SARAH LAUREN F. | 4-ABMC | TTH 1:00-2:30 Chapter 1 The Ontological argument is one of the many arguments that supports the existence of God. The ontological argument used for the existence of God was fist constructed in the Proslogion of Saint Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The ontological argument is concerned with the nature and relations of being. It attempts to answer questions like “What is real?” Anselm’s ontological proof tends to answer the question of whether or not God is real. In this argument, Anselm defines God as “which nothing greater can be conceived,” which can also be understood as God as perfect. God is defined as “the greatest possible being” in this argument. God too is said to have perfect power : omnipotence. There arises the question if God can create a round square. Can this God bend the rules of logic? But it can be said that God is only omnipotent to the greatest possible extent. Also, in this argument it claims that God cannot do what is logically impossible, but he can do anything that can be done. To conclude, it comes down from “God is omnipotent and can do literally anything,” to “God is omnipotent to the greatest possible extent.” Chapter 2 In this St. Aquinas’ cosmological argument for the existence of God, it is constructed in 5 proofs. First is the argument from motion which talks about, from his observations from Aristotle that concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion is put into motion by another...
Words: 1678 - Pages: 7
...Plato’s theory of ideas: ideas and sensual objects – differences and similarities 13. Plato’s theory of ideas: the conception of participation 14. Plato’s theory of ideas: the allegory of the cave 15. Plato’s theory of ideas: the ideal state 16. Aristotle: syllogisms 17.Hylomorphism: substance and its components 18. Aristotle: the four causes: what is the sense of final cause? 19. Aristotle: the theory of virtue (Golden Mean) 20. Aristotle: what does it mean to be a political animal? 21. The existence of God: ontological argument as formulated by St. Anselm 22. The existence of God: ontological argument as formulated by Descartes (deceitful demon and “Matrix”) 23. The existence of God: Pascal’s wager 24: Theodicy: how to explain suffering and injustice? 25. Descartes: the Cartesian method – its main assumptions and functions 26. Descartes: cogito and the mind/body problem 27. The theory of substance: monism and monistic theories 28. The theory of substance: pluralism and pluralistic theories 29. What is the...
Words: 348 - Pages: 2
...WHY SHOULD I BE MORAL? PLATO Jorge Mendieta •Meta-ethical positions -Nihilism -Absolutism -Relativism •Nihilists debate whether or not one can justify morality without appeal to religion •Certain people believe that one must appeal to God to support moral beliefs •Religious moralists argue that without God, life has no meaning and there is reason to be good or just •Secular moralists claim that morality is independent from God and religion. Pascal’s Wager •Blaise Pascal claimed that we do not need to have decisive proof of God’s existence in order to adopt a religious morality •Should we believe in God or not? •We can act as if God exists, or we can act as if God does not exist •Belief requires finite sacrifice for the infinite reward, while disbelief gets one finite rewards on the threat of infinite punishment •According to the diagram, in the absence of knowing whether God does or does not exist, we should act as if he does since the benefits ultimately outweigh the costs •“Why should we be moral when it is our self-interest to be immoral?” (Plato, 53) •Egoism is a challenge to morality •Two forms: Egoism Proper & Ethical Egoism •Egoists admit that occasionally it is in our interest to be moral ORIGIN OF JUSTICE •“They say that to do wrong is naturally good, to be wronged is bad, but the suffering of injury so far exceeds in badness the good of inflicting it that when men have done wrong to each other and suffered it, and have had a taste of both...
Words: 891 - Pages: 4