It just cannot be recreated unless you make it reality. To make it real, you have to decide to stop using the experience machine and go out to the actual world. The final reason I would not use an experience machine is because I would end up neglecting and eventually forgetting my family. Having a family is one of the greatest blessings we can have in our lives, but if I get caught up in using the experience machine for so long, my family members could be passing away one by one without me even knowing it. My family members could also want to see and interact with me, but using an experience machine denies them that
H.J. McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the existence of God and we should abandoned all “proofs” of this idea. In approaching the question of God’s existence, we cannot prove God or that other things exist. Proof is a certainty and without a shadow of doubt. However, it is possible I could be wrong, but I don’t believe I am.
In general, we don’t know for sure that something as God or any higher power of such has ever lived or existed, but it gives people hope and therefore religious knowledge systems still incorporate and effectively uses suspension of disbelief. Willing suspension of disbelief is still used in religion since this is the only way that mankind believes in something and does not lose hope or faith. The idea of suspension of disbelief is that you don’t use any kind of rationalization to explain the impossible, so what if you could explain religious belief with logic? Can you rationalize faith, although by definition it is not rational? According to John Cottingham, who is an English philosopher, argues there is absolutely nothing to rationalize since religion is “all about one's feeling of absolute dependence and commitment” ("Religious Faith [...]”).
Skeptics have discovered much evidence to not believe in ghosts. “To the materialist and the professional skeptic - that is to say, people who do not wish to be disturbed in their belief that death is the end of life as we know it - the notion of ghosts is unacceptable. No matter how much evidence is presented for the reality of the phenomena, they will argue against it and ascribe it to any of several “natural” causes(Holzer VIII).” Skeptics use many different reasons to back up their arguments against the reality of ghosts, such as they saw a mirage, or a hallucination, or even that it is all a fake(Holzer IX). Skeptics can also retaliate the evidence gathered about electromagnetic fields being used by ghosts in their side of the argument
In his article “Framing Moral Intuitions”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong sets out to reject moral intuitionalism by questioning whether moral intuitions can be justified non-inferentially. He defines a moral intuition as a strong and immediate belief (Sinnott-Armstrong, 47) and for it to be justified non-inferentially is to be able to justify it independently of any other belief (Sinnott-Armstrong, 48). His primary aim is to demonstrate that many of our moral intuitions are unreliable and consequently, that no moral intuition can be justified without inference. He does this by citing several studies that demonstrate how moral intuitions can be subject to “framing effects”. Framing effects are the effects that wording and context can have on our
Pascal’s wager states that a person cannot come to know God by reason alone so it is best that a person lives as if God does exist, because a person would not lose anything if God did not exist. Pascal’s wager says it is safer to bet that God does exist and to live a life like God does exist. He also makes the point that even if one does not have faith they could obtain it by ‘faking it’ or acting like they have faith. Pascal’s argument is not convincing to me for this reason alone. There is several times where his wager does not align with scripture.
He blatantly opposed war and argued that if a dispute should occur, war is not an option for a solution. King believed that war accomplishes nothing, that it is not as useful as many presume it to be (Lucks, 91). As can be seen throughout history, even to this day war does not solve problems, it only creates them. There have been wars in the past that were believed to end all wars, but as history shows, that belief was truly unsubstantiated. King thought that nonviolence is the answer to conflict.
Empson produces his information in a way where it is easy to understand and comprehend without adding in personal bias. He explains that, if anything, Iago is true to himself about his own desires. He knows what he wants and he is not afraid to put in work to get his desired results. When he is twisting the truth, “the feeling is genuine but not the sense it may imply”(180). Iago tells people variations of the truth but has such conviction and belief in his words that it would be difficult not to believe him.
Christian theologian William Lane Craig argues that without the existence God, a person’s life is devoid of meaning, purpose, and value. He claims that since God provides these, he allows humans to lead a satisfying and productive existence. Craig also states that without God, we are without guidance, meaningless, and in despair. In disagreement with atheist philosophers, Craig concludes that it is impossible to live a fufilling life without God. In this paper, I will examine each argument, and provide insight related to the strengths and weaknesses of his claims.
The way I viewed his heart’s desire made me feel like he is less of a bad person than people might think. I thought his heart’s desire was to be the best king he could be. This is an important reason because all he wanted to do was be the best king he could be, while others thought otherwise. In this case, he thought it would be best to kill Antigone because she broke a law and he wanted to protect the people of Thebes from a felon, even if it was somebody else. In line 1228 he says to the leader: “Oh it’s hard giving up on the heart’s desire… but I will do it” after he is convinced to let Antigone free.