Intro to philosophy modules 6-10

Inductive Argument

Since the world, on this analysis (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., is closely analogous to the most intricate artifacts produced by human beings, we can infer "by all the rules of analogy" the existence of an intelligent designer who created the world. Just as the watch has a watchmaker, then, the universe has a universe-maker. As expressed in this passage, then, the argument is a straightforward argument from analogy with the following structure: The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings in that it exhibits design. The design in any human artifact is the effect of having been made by an intelligent being. Like effects have like causes. Therefore, the design in the material universe is the effect of having been made by an intelligent creator.

What are the limits of our knowledge?

Some aspects of the world may be within the limits of our thought but beyond the limits of our knowledge; faced with competing descriptions of them, we cannot know which description is true. Some aspects of the world may even be beyond the limits of our thought, so that we cannot form intelligible descriptions of them, let alone know that a particular description is true.

How did Descartes end his radical doubt?

"Even then, if he is deceiving me I undoubtedly exist: let him deceive me all he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing while I think I am something. So after thoroughly thinking the matter through I conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., must be true whenever I assert it or think it." HIs conclusion is because he thinks he's being tormented by a devil, he must exist. And must be true when He thinks about it.

How is Descartes going to proceed with this Process?

"I can do this without showing that all my beliefs are false, which is probably more than I could ever manage. My reason tells me that as well as withholding assent (approval) from propositions that are obviously •false, I should also withhold it from ones that are •not completely certain and indubitable. So all I need, for the purpose of rejecting all my opinions, is to find in each of them at least some reason for doubt. I can do this without going through them one by one, which would take forever: once the foundations of a building have been undermined, the rest collapses of its own accord; so I will go straight for the basic principles on which all my former beliefs rested." He's saying that he will withhold his approval from opinions (propositions) that are obviously false not completely certain. and by doing so, he'll aim for the basic foundation the proposition is held on instead of attacking everything because if the foundation is weak/ false then everything built around it is off and will fall.

Theory of the Forms

"Many people associate Plato with a few central doctrines that are advocated in his writings: The world that appears to our senses is in some way defective and filled with error, but there is a more real and perfect realm, populated by entities (called "formsLinks to an external site." or "ideas") that are eternal, changeless, and in some sense paradigmatic for the structure and character of the world presented to our senses. Among the most important of these abstract objects (as they are now called, because they are not located in space or time) are goodness, beauty, equality, bigness, likeness, unity, being, sameness, difference, change, and changelessness. (These terms—"goodness", "beauty", and so on—are often capitalized by those who write about Plato, in order to call attention to their exalted status; similarly for "Forms" and "Ideas.") The most fundamental distinction in Plato's philosophy is between the many observable objects that appear beautiful (good, just, unified, equal, big) and the one object that is what beauty (goodness, justice, unity) really is, from which those many beautiful (good, just, unified, equal, big) things receive their names and their corresponding characteristics. Nearly every major work of Plato is, in some way, devoted to or dependent on this distinction. Many of them explore the ethical and practical consequences of conceiving of reality in this bifurcated way. We are urged to transform our values by taking to heart the greater reality of the forms and the defectiveness of the corporeal world. We must recognize that the soulLinks to an external site. is a different sort of object from the body—so much so that it does not depend on the existence of the body for its functioning, and can in fact grasp the nature of the forms far more easily when it is not encumbered by its attachment to anything corporeal. In a few of Plato's works, we are told that the soul always retains the ability to recollectLinks to an external site. what it once grasped of the forms, when it was disembodied prior to its possessor's birth (see especially Meno), and that the lives we lead are to some extent a punishment or reward for choices we made in a previous existence (see especially the final pages of Republic). But in many of Plato's writings, it is asserted or assumed that true philosophers—those who recognize how important it is to distinguish the one (the one thing that goodness is, or virtue is, or courage is) from the many (the many things that are called good or virtuous or courageous )—are in a position to become ethically superior to unenlightened human beings, because of the greater degree of insight they can acquire. To understand which things are good and why they are good (and if we are not interested in such questions, how can we become good?), we must investigate the form of good." focusing on the ideal person of something is the best. Form=Ideal; a blueprint to make a better version of something but for our life and its philosophy that can guide us. a form of education in mind can help the teacher. ideal is a deep understanding and careful engagement with reality. he wants us to be more accepting of the world. a guide on how to do something well yourself.

Descartes finds another reason to deepen his doubt of a current sense experience. What is that reason?

"So I shall suppose that some malicious, powerful, cunning demon has done all he can to deceive me—rather than this being done by God, who is supremely good and the source of truth. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely dreams that the demon has contrived as traps for my judgment. I shall consider myself as having no hands or eyes, or flesh, or blood or senses, but as having falsely believed that I had all these things." his reason is since he has no other prove of reality, he ,must believe he's asleep. and because of that, It can't be Gods work thats causing it since he's supposedly to be all good. He must assume his sleep state is caused by a demon so any physical objects or his physical state must not be true.

What is the first set of beliefs that Descartes is going to consider false? What is the reason for it?

"Whatever I have accepted until now as most true has come to me through my senses. But occasionally I have found that they have deceived me, and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once." The first set of beliefs that Descartes is going to consider false is any set of beliefs he gathers through his senses alone. because in the past, he's found that they have deceived him before and it would be "unwise" to trust anything or anyone once they have deceived you in that way.

What is Descartes' reason for doubting his current sense experience?

"Yet although the senses sometimes deceive us about objects that are very small or distant, that doesn't apply to my belief that I am here, sitting by the fire, wearing a winter dressing-gown, holding this piece of paper in my hands, and so on. It seems to be quite impossible to doubt beliefs like these, which come from the senses. As if I didn't remember other occasions when I have been tricked by exactly similar thoughts while asleep! As I think about this more carefully, I realize that there is never any reliable way of distinguishing being awake from being asleep. This discovery makes me feel dizzy, [joke:] which itself reinforces the notion that I may be asleep!" The reason is because he can't seem to distinguish between reality and being asleep since he's been tricked by his sense as he's sleeping. and since he doesn't trust anything thats deceived him before. he can no longer determine what is reality and whats not. He has no other reason then to assume that he's asleep because nothing proves otherwise.

think of Locke's distinction between the primary and secondary qualities. Do you agree with him? Explain your answer.

-all knowledge is derived from sensation( sum of all observations made of external things) and reflection (the sum of all observations made of the operations in ones own mind)tells us about the operations of our own minds. Tells us about things and processes in the external world. Reflection is a sort of internal sense that makes us conscious of the mental processes we are engaged in. Some ideas we get only from sensation, some only from reflection and some from both. -no man can imagine a simple idea that he has not already experienced. example: a blind man cannot imagine seeing color if he has never seen color before. -Primary qualities: extension, form, motion and number.(fire) these can cause: -Secondary Qualities: color taste, sound and order. these occur in our mind and not in the object. (pain) personal identity cold and hot do not exist in objects themselves. it is neither unless the person determines it so.

Deductive Argument

1. Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are design-like (exhibit a cognition-resonating, intention-shaped character R) 2. Design-like properties (R) are not producible by (unguided) natural means—i.e., any phenomenon exhibiting such Rs must be a product of intentional design. Therefore, 3. Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are products of intentional design. And of course, the capacity for intentional design requires agency of some type. seeks to persuade us its reason is based on evidence. and to persuade

Is Belief a Materm-40tter of Choice? Objections to Pascal's term-40wager

According to doxastic voluntarism, believing and disbelieving are choices that are up to us to make. Intellectualists deny this; they say it is impossible to adopt a belief simply because we decide to. If I offered to pay you $1000 for believing the sky is green, for instance, could you sincerely adopt this belief simply by wishing to? Evidently not. Therefore, some say, Pascal's wager does not give legitimate grounds for believing in God. But although we cannot adopt a belief simply by deciding to, the same is true for other actions. For instance, we cannot go to school simply by deciding to; rather, we have to wake up by a certain time (which may mean first developing a certain kind of habit), we must get dressed, we must put one foot in front of another, and so forth. Then if we are lucky we will end up at our destination, though this is far from guaranteed. So it goes for any other endeavor in life: one chooses to become a doctor, or to marry by age 30, or to live in the tropics -- the attainment of such goals can be facilitated, though not purely willed, by appropriate micro-steps that are more nearly under voluntary control. Indeed, even twitching your little finger is not entirely a matter of volition, as its success depends on a functioning neural system running from your brain, through your spine, and down your arm. Your minutest action is a joint product of internal volition and external contingencies. The same applies to theistic belief: although you cannot simply decide to be a theist, you can choose to read one-sided literature, you can choose to join a highly religious community, you can try to induce mystical experiences by ingesting psychedelic drugs like LSD, and you can choose to chant and pray. No mere exercise of will can guarantee that you will end up believing in God, but neither can any exercise of will guarantee that you succeed in doing anything else you decide to do. If there is a difference between our ability to voluntarily believe something and our ability to voluntarily wiggle our toe, it is a difference in degree of likely success, and not a difference in logical kind. Yet a difference in degree may be significant, and it is worth noting that theists and atheists may disagree on the power of prayer to change one's beliefs. Theists generally think that prayer tends to bring one into contact with God, in which case one is likely to notice, recognize, and believe in God's existence. Atheists, on the other hand, have no particular reason to think that mere praying should notably effect conversion. An agnostic would do well then to try; for it would be precisely in the case where success matters that trying is likely to be most efficacious. Indeed, it might not matter whether we can choose to have the beliefs we have. If Tables I or II be right then the fact would remain that it is pragmatically better to believe in God than not, insofar as theists, taken across all possible worlds, are on average better off than atheists. It does not matter whether theism results from personal will-power, God's grace, or cosmic luck -- regardless, being better off is being better off. Thus, Pascal's wager need not succeed as a tool of persuasion for it to serve as a tool of assessment (Mougin & Sober 1994).

Descartes Methodological Doubt

Descartes would believe that a belief was false if he had questions about its truth. Anything that survived his radical questioning, he would accept as certain. (skepticism)

Design Argument

Design arguments are empirical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments typically, though not always, proceed by attempting to identify various empirical features of the world that constitute evidence of intelligent design and inferring God's existence as the best explanation for these features. Since the concepts of design and purpose are closely related, design arguments are also known as teleological arguments which incorporates "telos," the Greek word for "goal" or "purpose."

explain the connection between metaphysical and epistemological questions.

Epistemological questions are there to try and validate metaphysical questions. Example: metaphysics; is god real? (Questions are more based on reality) Epistemological questions: how and why is god real? What makes god part of relaity? What proof is there that god is real?

EVIDENCE or no evidence of God?

Evidentialism implies that no full religious belief (i.e., a religious belief held with full confidence) is justified unless there is conclusive evidence for it, or it is self-evident... The content of religious experience has been stipulated not to count as evidence...Therefore, the only way of deciding whether the religious beliefs are justified would be to examine various arguments with the non-religious beliefs as premisses and the religious beliefs as conclusions.

Criticism Guanilo's

Gaunilo, a monk from the Abbey of Marmoutier, while noting the value of the remainder of theProslogion, attacked its argument for God's existence on several counts. His arguments prefigure many arguments made by later philosophers against ontological arguments for God's existence, and Anselm's responses provide additional insight into the Proslogion argument. Gaunilo makes four main objections, and in each case, Gaunilo transposes Anselm's "that than which nothing greater can be thought" into "that which is greater than everything else that can be thought." Gaunilo asserts that an additional argument is needed to move from this being having been thought to it being impossible for it not to be. "It needs to be proven to me by some other undoubtable argument that this being is of such a sort that as soon as it is thought its undoubtable existence is perceived with certainty by the understanding." (S., v. 1, p. 126) He brings up this need for a further, unsupplied, argument twice more in his Reply, and in the last instance discusses what is really at issue. The Fool can say: "[W]hen did I say that in the truth of the matter [rei veritate] there was such a thing that is 'greater than everything?' For first, by some other completely certain argument, some superior nature must be proven to exist, that is, one greater or better than everything that exists, so that from this we could prove all the other things that cannot be lacking to what is greater or better than everything else." (S., p. 129) A second problem is whether one can actually understand what is supposed to be understood in order for the argument to work because God is unlike any creature, anything that we have knowledge or a conception of . "When I hear 'that which is greater than everything that can be thought,' which cannot be said to be anything other than God himself, I cannot think it or have it in the intellect on the basis of something I know from its species or genus. . . . For I neither know the thing itself, nor can I form an idea of it from something similar." (S., p. 126-7) A third problem that Gaunilo raises is that the argument could be applied to things other than God, things that are clearly imaginary, so that, if the argument were valid, it could be used to prove much more than Anselm intended, namely falsities. Here, the example of the Lost Island is introduced. "You can no longer doubt that this island excelling [praestantiorem] all other lands truly exists somewhere in reality, this island that you do not doubt to exist in your understanding; and since it is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone but also to be in reality, so it is necessary that it exists, since, if it did not, any other land that exists in reality would be more excellent than it." (S., p. 128)

Do you agree or disagree with Descartes that it is better to examine and question your beliefs? Explain your answer.

How do we grow and mature as a person if we are not open to change in our believes? I agree with Descartes because isn't that what we do anyways as we grow up or when we want to make a change in society? If we're always stubborn in our beliefs and refuse to open up to new ideas and questions, then things would never change. In my opinion, I feel that big world changes like legalizing same sex marriage, getting rid of slavery and things like that we're all helped by people questioning their believes on that topic and deciding that perhaps they need to change their perspective of the situation for the better. Just because you change your opinions about something doesn't make you fake or a bad person. As you age . gain more life experience and have your brain fully develop: it's natural to critically think about your view points and see if they are up to date with the person you are now. This can cause life realizations that can help you achieve self-actualization. But again, it's a life-long practice that can't never be perfected. And that's okay.

Criticism

Hume criticizes the argument on two main grounds. First, Hume rejects the analogy between the material universe and any particular human artifact. As Hume states the relevant rule of analogy, "wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty" (Hume, Dialogues, Part II). Second, Hume argues that, even if the resemblance between the material universe and human artifacts justified thinking they have similar causes, it would not justify thinking that an all-perfect God exists and created the world. For example, there is nothing in the argument that would warrant the inference that the creator of the universe is perfectly intelligent or perfectly good.

Ontological Argument

One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. While there are several different versions of the argument, all purport to show that it is self-contradictory to deny that there exists a greatest possible being. ... the ontological arguments are conceptual in roughly the following sense: just as the propositions constituting the concept of a bachelor imply that every bachelor is male, the propositions constituting the concept of God, according to the ontological argument, imply that God exists. There is, of course, this difference: whereas the concept of a bachelor explicitly contains the proposition that bachelors are unmarried, the concept of God does not explicitly contain any proposition asserting the existence of such a being. Even so, the basic idea is the same: ontological arguments attempt to show that we can deduce God's existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God. [Even a] fool, when he hears of ... a being than which nothing greater can be conceived ... understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.... And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.... Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. (Proslogium by Anselm) The argument (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. in this difficult passage can accurately be summarized in standard form (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.: 1) It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). 2) God exists as an idea in the mind. 3)A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. 4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). 5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.) 6) Therefore, God exists.

Philosophy of religion

Philosophy of religion is the philosophical study of the meaning and nature of religion. It includes the analyses of religious concepts, beliefs, terms, arguments, and practices of religious adherents. The scope of much of the work done in philosophy of religion has been limited to the various theistic religions. More recent work often involves a broader, more global approach, taking into consideration both theistic and non-theistic religious traditions. The range of those engaged in the field of philosophy of religion is broad and diverse and includes philosophers from the analytic and continental traditions, Eastern and Western thinkers, religious believers and agnostics, skeptics and atheists. Philosophy of religion draws on all of the major areas of philosophy as well as other relevant fields, including theology, history, sociology, psychology, and the natural sciences.

Pascal's Wager and think of Pascal's proposal to believe in God because it is more profitable to do so. Can this self-serving calculation be a real genuine faith?

Pragmatism: We cannot know wether or not God exists. We should therefore believe whatever would be the most profitable. Believing in god is more good then not. God exists. God Does not exist B: Infinite GooD. Some Bad DB: Some Bad. Some Good mathematically going to be better for you to believe in god. because when. you through that infinity in here; its always going to win which is why it still stands strong. Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive, and not infinitesimal. Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one). Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God. Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.

explain the main difference between rationalism and empiricism

Rationalists: some ideas like good are innate which means we are born with it. we don't need any of our senses or outside experience to know this. empiricists: all ideas come from experience. When we are born, our mind is a blank tablet and everything we know has its origin in our sense experience. this is a branch of epistemology in philosophy devoted to studying the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. The disagreement between rationalists and empiricists primarily concerns the second question, regarding the sources of our concepts and knowledge. In some instances, their disagreement on this topic leads them to give conflicting responses to the other questions as well. They may disagree over the nature of warrant or about the limits of our thought and knowledge. Our focus here will be on the competing rationalist and empiricist responses to the second question.

Objection:

The argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity.. . . If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God.

Prudential reasoning Ethical Objections to Pascal's wager

There are two versions of this objection that need to be kept distinct. The first one suggests that Pascalian reasoners are manipulative egoists whom God might take exception to, and they won't be rewarded after all (Nicholl 1978). Schlesinger 1994 responds by saying that any reasoning that gets us to believe in God, if God exists, cannot be bad. But this argument seems to depend on the nature of God. If God holds that results are all that matter, that the ends justify the means, then Schlesinger is right. But maybe God holds that true beliefs count as meritorious only if they are based on good evidence; maybe God rewards only evidentialists. In short, this form of the objection is just another version of the many-gods objection. Another form of evidentialism refers not to God's character but to our own. Regardless of how God might or might not reward our decisions, it may be categorically, epistemically or otherwise wrong -- "absolutely wicked", in the words of G.E. Moore -- for us to base any belief on decision-theoretic self-interest (Clifford 1879, Nicholls 1978). Since utilitarians would tend to favor Pascalian reasoning while Kantians and virtue ethicists would not, the issue at stake belongs to a much larger debate in moral philosophy.

What is a cause of our ideas if there is no material world?

This leaves us, then, with the third option: my sensory ideas must be caused by some other spirit. Berkeley thinks that when we consider the stunning complexity and systematicity of our sensory ideas, we must conclude that the spirit in question is wise and benevolent beyond measure, that, in short, he is God

What is the nature of propositional knowledge, knowledge that a particular proposition about the world is true?

To know a proposition, we must believe it and it must be true, but something more is required, something that distinguishes knowledge from a lucky guess. Let's call this additional element 'warrant'. A good deal of philosophical work has been invested in trying to determine the nature of warrant.

How can we gain knowledge?

We can form true beliefs just by making lucky guesses. How to gain warranted beliefs is less clear. Moreover, to know the world, we must think about it, and it is unclear how we gain the concepts we use in thought or what assurance, if any, we have that the ways in which we divide up the world using our concepts correspond to divisions that actually exist.

list some epistemological questions

What is truth? Do we really know what we think we know? How can knowledge be made more reliable? How can we know anything? What is knowledge? What can we know with certainty? How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits?

Epistemological Position: Empiricism

all knowledge is based only on sense experience. -none of our knowledge is gained through innate ideas, intuition or deduction that is not informed by experience. -any knowledge we have is a posteriori. these positions only need to conflict if they are framed over the same subject matter. - you can be an empiricist with chemistry and a rationalist about logic. -might take a more skeptical route if they discover that no knowledge can be discovered through empirical means . British Empiricists John locke. George Berkeley

Cosmological

argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. in favor of god A Posteriori and inductive which means it aims to persuade us not prove.

No Evidence: Fideism

can be defined as "exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth." (Plantinga)

Define a posteriori knowledge

empirical can only be known with sense experience. you must go out into the world and experience for the knowledge. these things. you can't just think them in your head. example: -cheryl has a cookie -my dog likes chicken, -it often rains in Portland. -all bachelors in the U.S are taxed at a different rate from married men -all crows are black grass is green.

Thomas Aquinas' version site. of cosmological argument

he second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the 148 Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction Chapter 13. "From the Nature of the Universe" by Thomas Aquinas intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. t might be helpful to present Aquinas' argument in a more formal way: The world contains instances of efficient causation (given). Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. So, every efficient cause seems to have a prior cause. But we cannot have an infinite regress of efficient causes. So there must be a first efficient cause "to which everyone gives the name God."

Evidence: Agnosticism

is a belief that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of a proposition. The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of God. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not God exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that God exists.

Evidence: Natural Theology

is a program of inquiry into the existence and attributes of God without referring or appealing to any divine revelation. In natural theology, one asks what the word "God" means, whether and how names can be applied to God, whether God exists, whether God knows the future free choices of creatures, and so forth. The aim is to answer those questions without using any claims drawn from any sacred texts or divine revelation, even though one may hold such claims.

No Evidence: Nonevidentialism

is a view that it is not required to have objective evidence for religious belief. In places, [William] James goes further and suggests that in certain cases—especially cases involving religious and moral belief—it is not merely permitted but positively commendable or even required that we believe on insufficient evidence.

Prepositional

opinion statements that can justified as true or false

PAscals's wagar

is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single paragraph of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a 'wager' — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as "Pascal's Wager." "But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all... " Again this passage is difficult to understand completely. Pascal's talk of winning two, or three, lives is a little misleading. By his own decision theoretic lights, you would not act stupidly "by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you"—in fact, you should not stake more than an infinitesimal amount in that case (an amount that is bigger than 0, but smaller than every positive real number). The point, rather, is that the prospective prize is "an infinity of an infinitely happy life." In short, if God exists, then wagering for God results in infinite utility.

Evidence: Atheism

is the view that there is no God. Unless otherwise noted, this article will use the term "God" to describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religious traditions--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. At a minimum, this being is usually understood as having all power, all knowledge, and being infinitely good or morally perfect.

Define knowledge

justified true belief belief in your head

Epistemological Position: Skepticism

knowledge is not possible. -doubt everything. -would think a belief is false if he could question it's truth. neither a rationalist or a empiricist since they either deny that knowledge is possible, or at least do not claim that knowledge is possible. Rene Descartes, a French rationalist

Epistemological Position: epistemological relativism

knowledge is subjective to either an individual or their culture. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.

Define belief

propositional attitudes. Or opinions that you have towards a particular proposition. If you believe something you have the attitude or opinion that is true. you must believe some statement for you to know it.

explain Berkeley's response to the question of consistency, regularity, and continuity in our reality?

reality is a seres of mental ideas. nothing is actually physical. rejects Direct Realism. secondary qualities are different for different people and different times and never consistent. no matter what we are aware that we only previewed our own ideas of reality and not reality directly. uses meter argument. the very existence for an external world can't be a thing because were perceiving it as an idea in the mind no matter what you see. but how can reality still be so consistent if reality is in the mind. how there be nothing physical and how can objects consistently change like a candle melting if you are not there in the room perceiving and watching it for a period of time? God keeps laws of nature for our mind to perceive. he keeps our mind in a state of regularity. which is why a lot of things are so consistent even without minds present. everything is created from god so gods mind is always present. But how to different ant reality from dreams. reality have regularity, order and steady. not so much in dreams. Berkeley assumes god when he shouldn't. without the idea of god this leaves a lot of holes. He analyzes this question from several different angles and concludes that all we can possibly mean when we say that a thing exists is that the thing is being perceived. To exist, and to be perceived, for Berkeley come down to the same thing. To be means to be perceived, or esse est percipi, is Berkeley's famous principle. - the sensations of redness, hardness, shape, etc. - all actually exist only in my mind, not out in a some hypothesized "external world." -So if we perceive only sensations and do not ever actually perceive physical matter, then according to Berkeley we cannot claim to experience physical matter (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., and thus have no basis for believing that physical matter exists. Thus, the list of existents for Berkeley would look like this: 1. Minds - finite human minds - God's infinite mind Perceptions that exist in those minds, 2. Thus, for Berkeley no physical objects or physical matter exist at all.

Epistemological Position: Rationalism

reason is the main source of knowledge. knowledge without senses (eyes, ears, taste, touch). there are ways that we can grow knowledge independent of sense experience. -innate Ideas (ideas that we have at birth; born with certain ideas) -Institutions ( intellectually envisioning a proposition as true, for things like the law of logic or math) -Deduction ( flawless process of logical proof often by taking certain logical or mathematical truths as intuitively true.) plato's theory of the Forms

Define Truth

some statement is true if and only if it corresponds to reality. Most philosophers agree that you can't know the false. you can't know something thats not true.

Define a priori knowledge

something that can be known without experience or sense data. you can have knowledge of without going out into the world and testing for it. more common sense? innate (we are born with it) Examples: -Brothers are male siblings -five is a prime number -dan has more cookies then Cheryl and Cheryl has more cookies then Katie, then dan has more cookies then Katie. -all bachelors are unmarried -all crows are birds -green is a color.

What is metaphysics?

study of reality. What excists what doesnt. Fundamentel codes of operation. Issues of cause and effect. Its a knowledge / hyposthesis claim example: the idea that god is real.

Plato's Divided Line

the intelligible world is related to the visible world as visible things are related to likenesses of them create a line and divide it in half. then divide those half in half again. -World of the forms (Intelligible realm) was closer to truth and reality -World of Appearances (visible realm) was further from truth and reality. (illusions you cane get much knowledge) math is one of the closest thing to knowledge. Intelligence (pure ideas)

Epistemological Position: Constructivism

the mind constructs knowledge from the materials of sense experience. German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Epistemology

the study of knowledge and justified belief. It suppsed to answer "how do you know this statement is true or untrue?"

Justification Vs. Warrant

warrant is usually considered whatever needs to be added to true belief to make it knowledge. This could be justification, justification and something else, or something other than justification completely. Internists generally think that justification has a part to play to warrant, while externalists dent that it does.

think of whether the universe is self-explanatory or it needs to be explained. Explain your answer.

why is there something rather then nothing? why is there a universal at all? concept of causation: law of cause and effect.; evolution what caused the Big Bang? if we reject regret then it can go on forever. if its not part of the universe then its not physical, not bound by time then it must be spiritual and external and not caused must be necessary so it must be God. 5 ways of rationality for god motion, causes, contingency (exist is dependent on something else. , (guilty and design)