George Price Enters Center : A Brilliant Man

In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.

During the 1800th century, William Paley, an English philosopher of religion and ethics, wrote the essay The Argument from Design. In The Argument from Design, Paley tries to prove the existence of a supreme being through the development of a special kind of argument known as the teleological argument. The teleological argument is argument by analogy, an argument based on the similarities between two different subjects. This essay purposefully attempts to break down Paley’s argument and does so in the following manner: firstly, Paley’s basis for the teleological argument is introduced; secondly, Paley’s argument is derived and analyzed; thirdly, the connection between Paley’s argument and the existence of a supreme being is made; and

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

In this essay I will discuss the ontological problem of the existence of God and discuss Pascal’s Wager and how it solves the issue. The problem with the proof of the existence of God is that it is not something we will know for sure until our dying day. We can speculate and bet on his existence and “feel” his presence but at this point it is just that, only a bet. This wager is famous for opening up minds to look at the problem in a bigger picture. The problem with the existence of God is not in the answer but instead in the question. Pascal is responsible for refocusing this discussion on God to the bigger problem of the existential context of human life. In a way this can all be broken down to very black and white terms “Either God is or he is not.” But upon looking further we realize that this is a much bigger issue with many grey areas than something as simple as ‘is or is not’.

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

George McCready Price (or George Edward Price) was born in 1870 and died in 1963. Price had a reputation as being an influence on creationism among people he met (Numbers, p. 89). His father died when George was very young and his mother joined an SDA church on the aftermath of the Millerite movement and during this period was when Ellen G White began having her visions and Seventh-day Adventism was becoming known as Bible people (Numbers, p.89-90). Ellen G White support creationism by endorsing that Noah 's flood did happen and that it change the world 's surface and buried fossils which helped formed mountains, hills and trees (Numbers, p. 90). Price, married an Adventist lady who was twelve years older than him, he had a job selling books, but then decided to go to Battle Creek College to get an education in teaching, but he ran out of funds which force him to work as a bookseller again but in 1897, he got a job working as a teacher at Tracadie (Numbers p. 91). This was my first time learning about George Price, I was shocked to read that he married someone twelve years older than him. Price was a strong believer and supporter of Creationism but he made friends with people who were not like Dr. Alfred Smith, who got him to research evolution (Numbers, p. 91). As a result of his many years of research, Price published a 271 page book on the cons of evolution and the development of Darwinism (Numbers p. 92-93). Price even worked as a pastor on Prince Edward Island but got

There are a number of universities in the United States that offer a liberal arts education. These particular universities encompass philosophy and theology as a part of their core curriculum. By taking such courses students are enabled to learn and understand more about the world around them and who they are. A question concerning the existence of God and the role of each individual in society gives rise to speculation. In his article “Why Study Philosophy and Theology”, Dr. Peter Kreeft makes a bold claim which indicates that “anyone who is simply not interested in philosophical questions is less than fully human…” He explains this claim by providing a continuous chain of arguments, in which each argument breaks down the proper reasoning behind why an individual should desire to learn about philosophy and theology. These arguments include the Goal of Education, the Big Picture, and Good Philosophy and Theology.

Born in 1845, William Clifford was a mathematician and philosopher famed for his philosophy of science and quest for answering ethical questions through scientific evidence (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). Clifford recognized several difficulties in Emmanuel Kant’s argument related to philosophy, which inspired him to begin a search for answers related to innate belief, personal responsibility of guilt, and overall creation. In the Ethics of Belief, Clifford asserts that it is always wrong to believe based on insufficient evidence, a theme that would follow his opinion on every issue he chose to tackle.

We continue our study of the history of God by looking at His attributes from a number of different viewpoints. We will first examine the view of Classical Theism, then the view of Freewill Theism, and finally that of Open Theism. We begin by defining Classical Theism, also called traditional theism or Augustinian theism.

Hugh Everett III was an American physicist who created the “relative state” formulation. I can relate to his experience as an atheist in a predominantly religious society. Hugh Everett was born in Washington D.C. in 1930. Everett attended St. John’s College during high school, and was accepted into The Catholic University of America for undergraduate chemical engineering. During World War II, Everett’s father was stationed in West Germany, and Everett took a year off to join him. He graduated in 1953, and went on to attend Princeton University, where he began studying Game Theory before switching to Physics.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Mario Livio’s novel, “Is God a Mathematician?” was not was what I was expecting when I learned that it was my reading assignment for a math class. I expected it to be riddled with complex mathematical terminology and full of complex equations, leaving me to research possibly every theorem and concept in the book. However, Livio does not leave his readers hanging. In the book, he explains every concept in depth, and answers any question the reader could possibly have, making this book not just an academic read, but for anyone who's just lounging around on their couch. I was intrigued by many of the concepts that were presented in this book.

The leading minds of science and literature were playing right into the hands of the common man at the most opportune time in history. The blind trust in religion was beginning to fade and the papal order was beginning to be shrouded in skepticism. Unquestioningly taking someone else’s word for what was true and acceptable was a thing of the past. The average individual was beginning to doubt the existence of an all-powerful God and turn his or her attention inward. The landscape of Europe and the world would forever be changed by these new revolutionary ideas and go on to influence the crusaders of the American and French Revolution.