Pascal believed in heaven as possible infinite gain, however Descartes believed that the nature and existence of an external world as something that cannot be fully known or understood. Pascal also believed that the belief in God as the only reasonable choice, when Descartes believed that God should always be held true. Their beliefs still back up this objection though. If nothing is known about the external world, or the external world is infinite gain, there is still no absolute certainty in which side of the wager to choose, therefore betting on God as true is still the most reasonable
Saint Anselm delivered the strongest ontological argument for God through conceptual analysis. The ontological argument is a deductive argument that is an analytical statement that can be constructed by definition(s). He argues that one thing is necessary to exist, and that thing is God. God is a necessary being. His argument is known as reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates through a contradiction that God exists.
His main argument replies to Anselm’s assumption of the fact that existing in reality is greater than existing in the intellect. This is called the ‘lost island’ argument. This argument follows Anselm’s set up of the Ontological argument in Proslogion two. Gaunilo begins his argument by stating that there is a perfect island somewhere, and no greater island can be conceived. This Island easily exists in the intellect, but when Gaunilo would be asked to accept that this island exists in reality, without a doubt, Gaunilo would think them the fool.
Tolstoy argues, rational knowledge cannot provide a clear answer to what is the meaning of life, because it explains that life is just a random of collections of cells forming and than passing. The randomness and purposelessness is what frightens Tolstoy, because he questions what is the point of living if he was not even specially formed for a special function. His argument is rooted in the idea that rational knowledge diminishes the sacredness of life by eliminating purpose. From his observations, he concludes life is sacred when viewed through the lens of religious faith; religious faith argues our purpose:a) is given by an omni-benevolent being, b) makes life meaningful, and c) contributes to something more than ourselves (Tolstoy 674). Tolstoy is not necessarily religious, but he
Health can be scientifically measured and is not an opinion, whereas good describing something as good is an opinion. In the Three Essays on Religion, John Stuart Mill wrote “If I know nothing about what the attribute is, I cannot tell that it is a proper object of veneration.” He argued that words like good do not mean the same when describing people as it does when describing God. I think this a good point, for if we think that God is a perfect ineffable being, then none of our conceivable words like good would be able to
In John Locke’s, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke develops an argument for the existence of God. In the the following paper, I shall first reconstruct Lockes’ argument for his claim of God’s existence. I shall then identify what I take to be the weakest premise of the argument and explain why I find it in need of justification. The following is a reconstruction of Lockes’ argument: 1) Man has a clear perception of his own being 2) If man knows his own being, then man knows that bare nothing cannot produce a being 3) Therefore, man knows that bare nothing cannot produce a being (from 1 and 2) 4) If bare nothing cannot produce a being, then there has been an eternal being 5) Therefore, there is an eternal (infinite) being
Modernist worldview Modernity includes a search for absolute, unquestionable, rational certainty, based on logic and evidence alone. (Of course, many “modern philosophers” admitted such may be ultimately impossible for finite beings, but that didn’t stop them from holding it as an ideal and continuing the search.)  Post-modern worldview Postmodern is simply the rejection of certainty in the synthetic realm, even in science. Postmodern is also defined by the belief that all truth claims are infected by “belief”. That is, there is no such thing as “a view from nowhere.” Even what counts as “logic” and “evidence” is value-dependent, arising from within a story, a perspective.
They believe that no matter what they do, they don’t have the power or ability to change the things or events that are going to happen since it was all fated. However, with agency in human, they believe that something will be bound to changes with their action. They believe they could do something to modify the ending to anything but the known-predicted ending. Sophocles has seamlessly engaged determinism into the book through making known that Apollo’s predictions will happen to Oedipus. To King Laius and Queen Jocasta, Apollo was the mighty one; his prediction is and will be the only truth to them.
He strongly believes that “the scientific method is our only source of knowledge” (58). I disagree with his belief because people also possess their own sense of knowledge. They gain this knowledge through the different obstacles they come across in their lives, which indicates that not all knowledge comes from scientific method. Freud describes “the teachings of Jesus as “psychologically impossible and useless for our lives” (38). I cannot agree with his statement because there are people who study and believe in Jesus because Jesus gives them an optimistic view to life.
From the death of Tybalt, Juliet is forced to marry Count Paris and of course, Juliet will have no part in this. The most stubborn Juliet goes to seek advice from Friar Lawrence, where she is given the solution to fake her death. Juliet had a plan to run away to Mantua with Romeo, but before this could happen and before Friar send word to Romeo. Balthasar, Romeo 's friend, had mistakenly told Romeo Juliet was dead, yet she was not. “Her body sleeps in Capels’ monument / And her immortal part with angels lives” (5.1.18-19) 5.1.18-19).