According To Moreland Summary

Moreland refutes physicalism through is argument of personal identity. His argument starts out with an example. (pg. 311)

1. God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.

That means a thing must “be” in the physical, mathematical, or metaphysical level of reality. By this definition, if I am not mistaken, I exist because I am on the physical level of reality. This cancels out my suspicion of being a simulation, however, I could still be a “test subject,” a lab rat of some mad scientist alien who enjoys playing games with cause and effect. When I think about this, I conceptualize it as if I’m in the Hunger Games. In the Hunger Games novels and movies, the Gamemakers would manipulate the arena in order to provide entertainment for their viewers. What if another being is manipulating each person’s life in a trial and error process? Is the Earth a television show for another being to use for entertainment? I sometimes think that this is a possibility. How do we know that the weather is simply a force of nature? Couldn’t there be a possibility that it is simply a factor another being put into play to see how humans reacted? While studying metaphysics, we learned that there is only one primary cause and many secondary causes in the universe. Since something, in the beginning, caused everything else (or continues to cause everything else) isn’t it responsible for the many factors of the world and couldn’t it experiment with those factors as it pleases? I still battle with this

According to J.P. Moreland in his argument for dualism, he states that humans are composed of both an immaterial substance and a physical substance. Moreland notes that there are contrasting differences between the minds and the brains and that they are ultimately separate entities. By defending dualism, Moreland seeks to make nonbelievers believe in immaterial souls, while discrediting materialism. We can look at the arguments in which Moreland uses to support the argument of dualism and belief that the mind and brain are separate entities.

This can be challenged as to sit in a lecture you must be certain that you’re sitting in a lecture, but you cannot be certain that you are not actually dreaming, therefore you cannot be certain that you’re sitting in a lecture. P2 – there is no way to be certain that the experiences we perceive to be reality are our reality. Descartes’ argues that there is no way that we can be completely certain that such experiences are not unconscious experiences, “Any experience that strikes me as waking experiences such that I am perceiving the environment in a normal way are indistinguishable from possible dreaming experiences.”

Berkeley's attempt to popularize his pro-mind conception of the external world, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, serves to undermine Locke's distinctions between primary and secondary qualities of the external world. In his publication, Berkeley uses dialogue between Hylas and Philnous, which consists of a series of arguments, to determine the most sound theory. Ground rules of the debate consists of: whoever of the two's position avoids skepticism about knowledge of physical objects wins and that if one position can be shown to entail that we cannot know anything about physical objects, consequently that position should be dismissed as absurd (Kelly, 2013). Throughout the arguments, Berkeley weakens Locke's theory of Limited Representationalism by counteracting Locke's with the possibility that instead of “matter” that comprises physical objects in the external world, these objects are simply ideas. Drawing back on Berkeley's catchy motto, “to be is to be perceived”, he proposes three arguments that support his idealist view that the motto encapsulates. The three pieces of support also importantly shed skepticism upon Lockes primary and secondary distinctions involving “matter”. The three statements of support include: The argument that physical

What is reality? What is known? These questions are constantly being reviewed keeping people anxiously waiting for the real answer. The Matrix is a popular movie dealing with many philosophical ideas from, Gods, Beauty, Reality, and existence. The Matrix deals with an intelligent “computer hacker,” Neo, who questions many things such as reality as he lives two different lives day vs. night. With that being said, Neo starts to ponder how does he know what is real, true, or all knowing. As humans we face this challenge everyday, how do we actually “know?” We know because of our senses, evidence, observations, assumption, and Epistemology.

I believe that the nature of the universe as hand work of a supreme being that exist beyond human imagination. The nature of the universe is an evidence to show that , there is one who is higher than every order one that has the ultimate power that is in existence somewhere, that watch over, maintain, supply all that the inhabitants of the universe need or require to function with. In which

Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Questioned if you are completely able to see from the outside looking in? Philosopher Plato, presents his view of reality through an allegory to explain the concept, and how we gain knowledge of our reality. Two other philosophers that I will mention both touch base with their description of reality and how it relates to Plato’s conception. All three of these philosophers believe knowledge is attainable through acts of realization and simple knowledge, and each philosopher presents his/her main point of reality through different ways of attaining it. I will further mention the relevance of Plato’s theory in today’s world and why I believe it to be valuable.

4. What is meant by the phase “looking out in the universe is looking back in time?”

One of the most fundamental questions in philosophy is the one of appearance vs. reality. We find ourselves asking the question of what is genuinely “real,” and what is viewed merely as just an “appearance,” and not real? It becomes difficult when we assume there is a difference in the two to determine which is which. Generally, what we label as “real” is regarded as external

“The minute we have taken the backward step to an intangible view of our whole system of beliefs, proof, and rationalization, and seen that it works only, in spite of its pretensions, by taking the world mainly for granted, we are not in a place to contrast all these forms with an alternative reality. We cannot shed our normal responses, and if we could it would leave us with no means of conceiving a reality of any kind (Nagel, 1971; p. 723).”

What we think is reality will ultimately become our reality if we believe certain things about an individual; he/she begins acting in exactly that way.

"'It seems, if I hear right, that you can see/ beforehand that which time is carrying,/ but you're denied the sight of present things.'/ ŒWe see, even as men who are farsighted,/ those things,' he said, Œthat are remote from us;/ the Highest Lord allots us that much light./ But when events draw near or are, our minds/ are useless; were we not informed by others,/ we should know nothing of your human state./ So you can understand how our awareness/ will die completely at the moment when/ the portal of the future has been shut'" (X, 97-108).

are thinking things which are constantly having experiences of what we think is reality or the world without. These