We are told to follow certain norms or otherwise the big guy upstairs will punish us for being “disobedient”. To many, “believing in God” is the only way to live, the reason for the way everything is, and it’s the meaning to life. To others, God, is just a popular view whose existence cannot be proven. While both Atheist and Agnostics agree on the questioning of God’s existence, they disagree on the reasoning of why thing are the way they are. Agnostics believe in a higher power while Atheists believe
believe in God’s existence. It is important to note that in Pascal’s Wager, Pascal is not using reason to determine if God exists, just if it is more beneficial to believe in God’s existence. The way Pascal views it, there are
In questioning the existence of God, the ideology of fideism is used to in support the existence of God with the use of faith. Opposed to other various views, fideism relies on the use of faith and/or revelation rather than depending single-handedly on reason alone. Blaise Pascal is a French philosopher that approaches the doctrine and beliefs of fideism using his “wager” argument to confirm the concept that there is a monotheistic God in existence (269). Pascal’s ideology revolves around the wins
we can’t just assume that God exist by just believing in his existence. Similar to proving a mathematical formula, scientific proofs such as experiment, evidences and even artifacts are a necessity to verify that God exist. It’s almost like
The concept of God’s existence has most likely crossed everyone’s mind once in their lifetime. For some, God is an integral part of their daily lives. Believers live each day devoting themselves to God and appreciating his blessings. On the other hand, others argue that the concept of “God” is nothing more than a figment of people’s imagination due to lack of physical proof of God’s existence. At some point, even some believers have had their doubts regarding God’s existence simply when prayers go
show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable. Pascal’s Wager is an argument that tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in the existence of the Christian god. Pascal thinks non-theists should believe in God’s existence because if a non-theist is wrong about the existence of God they have much more to lose than if a theist is wrong about the existence of God. Pascal begins his
A reasonable person is a sensible one with sound judgment formed through logic. The common belief of “seeing is believing” makes justifying why God does indeed exist hard for some people because how could a reasonable person believe in something that he or she cannot physically see? Although a person may not be able to physically see God, reason to believe in His existence still exists. It may even be seen as a leap of faith to believe that God exists without being able to physically see Him, yet
statement A of any truth. If reasoning behind statement (i) provide sufficient evidence to support premise (i) then I will be disagree with statement A. Arguments for Premise (ii and iii) ascribe partial truth to statement A but distinguish between God’s ability to possess the potential to make evil good v.s. God possessing this ability and wanting to make evil good. This distinction supports premise A in similar ways for both premise (ii and iii) raise a paradoxical puzzle into what disposition God
The question of God’s existence, will, and manifestation, in some form or another, is one that has crossed the mind of virtually every person over 8,000 years and continues to be questioned and reinterpreted, and shaping our society as our answers to that question change over the years. Three of the most influential thinkers to attempt to define God, and God’s existence are David Hume (1711-1776), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). The beliefs of these philosophers
Sebastian Gumina Paper Topic #1 Descartes’ Skeptical Method Descartes’ method offers definitive conclusions on certain topics, (his existence, the existence of God)but his reasoning is not without error. He uses three arguments to prove existence (His and God’s) that attempt to solidify his conclusions. For his method to function seamlessly, Descartes needs to be consistent in his use of the method, that is, he must continue to doubt and challenge thoughts that originate in his own