Pascal's Waager Rhetorical Analysis

Hume's claim against miracles is that it does not matter how strong the evidence for a miracle it may be it is rather more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it. Hume states that there are two ways in order to decide to believe a piece of evidence. The reliability of a witness is the first factor. A witness can be dishonest or be ignorant about a situation which would make their claims worth little. So Humes says to take in consideration how reliable the witness is.

The superdominace argument from Pascal 's wager essentially states that we cannot be sure whether God exists, so we have to wager on a side because reason cannot help in our decision on God 's existence, but he supports believing in God. While the argument from expectation states "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing" (Pascal 53). Pascal essentially says that when faced with God 's existence believing that he exists gives you two outcomes these are "you gain all" and "you lose nothing"(Pascal 53). Much less not believing in God can have the outcome of misery or simply status quo. To put it briefly, Pascal suggests one should wager on whether God exists on their own accord.

In this essay I will be writing about Blaise Pascal, a mathematician and French philosopher whose work became very popular due to his "Wager". Pascal's argument in his essay "The Wager" states that any rational human should believe in God. He states that regardless of whether or not God exists, the option of believing yields the greatest benefit and the least loss out of all the possibilities. In believing in God, one can receive infinite gain which is heaven, if God exist, and would only have finite losses if God does not exist. However, he shares that if one was to bet against god, if one wins or loses, the individual would either gain an insignificant finite if God does not exist, or lose everything if God does exist which would lead to going to Hell.

Guy de Maupassant uses comedy to reveal how worried he is with his friends playing a cruel trick on him when he stays over at friends house. He says “When I arrived, they gave me a princely reception, which at one awakened suspicion in my mind.” Maupassant talks about how for years his friends played many tricks on him, and how they were always extreme pranks. Later in the story he learns that it wasn 't his friends doing the pranks anymore. It was the cat who jumped on the bed.

Initially, the second objection begins with two quotes again, starting with a strong comment from both Richard Dawkins and Gary Habermas. Of course, Richard specifically takes a negative approach towards the idea of miracles, simply labelling it as religious propaganda meant specifically to capture the beliefs of the “unsophisticated” and warp the minds of youth. Alternately, Gary Habermas defends that miracles are historically recognized and worthy of acknowledgement when interpreted as a testimony to the nature of God. Yet, when considering the largely different and extreme views on the idea of miracles in the world, the views of Richard Dawkins presumes a negative disposition that dismisses the idea instantaneously, giving an impression that refuses to consider the issue as a possibility not worthy of intellectual discussion, as Gary attempted to provide reasoning to his beliefs.

As an immediate result of Marc Antony’s funeral oration, Rome is steered into a state of anarchy. With the loss of their leader leaving them vulnerable, the plebeians falls victim to Antony’s engagement of rhetoric and are greatly stirred by his speech. Despite their commendation of Brutus just moments before, they are easily pit against him through Antony’s words and feel morally compelled to revolt against the conspirators in the name of Caesar. This frenzy escalates rapidly and the anger towards the conspirators grows so large to the point where the plebeians will penalize anybody who bears a slight similarity to them. For instance, two plebeians encounter a poet and, after besieging him with a slew of questions, discover that he shares

While Chanel is definitely a group company that has been any discussion to pinpoint one company which represents the whole group. And it makes sense to consider that Chanel. S.A. (the French-based company) founded by Coco Chanel herself as the main entity for convenience sake. The version of Chanel. S.A. is shown in the Table 1 below.

The Candie's Foundation is a non-profit organization that strives to prevent teen pregnancy. The Carly Rae Jepsen advertisement focuses on how teen pregnancy can change the life plans of teenage girls. The advertisement uses rhetorical appeals in order to convey The Candie’s Foundation message. The advertisement uses logos, ethos, and pathos as support for the main argument.

Religion and spirituality has been shaping and transforming the United States since its beginning. Religion has been an important part of the American psyche and culture and plays an important role in the lives of many American’s. It is a natural part of human nature to want answers for some of life’s most biggest problems and religion tends to be one of those answers. Religion has influenced America in a number of ways, but one way in particular is in the Constitution. In the Constitution, the First Amendment guarantees every American the right to practice (or to not practice) their religious beliefs (First Amendment).

In the history of modern philosophy, a lot of philosophers have raised and discussed the question of when and how a society first came into place. The most important theory related to that was, “The Social Contract Theory” discussed by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau and one of the major critiques against it was by David Hume in “Of the Original Contract”. In this paper, I will present Hume’s arguments against the social contract theory, how his views might apply to Locke’s, then Locke’s response to Hume’s argument and finally present my argument of why I agree with Hume. In “Of The Original Contract”, David Hume provides arguments as to why he believes that the social contract theory does not justify the establishment of a state.