I believe - That we don't have to
change friends if we understand that friends change.
I
believe - That no matter how good a friend is, they're going to hurt
you every once in a while and you must forgive them for that.
I
believe - That true friendship continues to grow, even over the
longest distance. Same goes for true love.
I believe -
That you can do something in an instant that will give you heartache
for life.
I believe - That it's taking me a long time to
become the person I want to be.
I believe - That you
should always leave loved ones with loving words. It may be the last
time you see them.
I believe - That you can keep
going long after you think you can't.
I
believe -
That we are responsible for what we do, no matter how we feel.
I
believe - That either you control your attitude or it controls you.
I believe - That regardless of how hot and steamy a
relationship is at first, the passion fades and
there had
better be something else to take its place.
I believe -
That heroes are the people who do what has to be done when it needs
to be done, regardless of the consequences.
I believe -
That money is a lousy way of keeping score.
I believe -
That my best friend and I can do anything or nothing and have the
best time.
I believe - That sometimes the people you
expect to kick you when you're down, will be the ones to help you get
back up.
I believe - That sometimes when I'm angry I have
the right to be angry, but that doesn't give me the right to be
cruel.
I believe - That just because
someone
doesn't love you the way you want them to doesn't mean they don't
love you with all they have.
I believe - That maturity
has more to do with what types of experiences you've had and what
you've learned from them and less to do with how many birthdays
you've celebrated.
I believe - That it isn't always
enough to be forgiven by others. Sometimes you have to learn to
forgive yourself.
I believe - That no matter how bad your
heart is broken the world doesn't stop for your grief.
I
believe - That our background and circumstances may have influenced
who we are, but we are responsible for who we become.
I
believe - That just because two people argue, it doesn't mean they
don't love each other.
And just because they don't argue, it
doesn't mean they do.
I believe - That you shouldn't be
so eager to find out a secret. It could change your life
forever.
I believe - That two people can look at the exact same
thing and see something totally different.
I believe -
That your life can be changed in a matter of hours by people who
don't even know you.
I believe - That even when you think
you have no more to give, when a friend cries out to you - you will
find the strength to help.
I believe - That credentials
on the wall do not make you a decent human being.
I
believe - That the people you care about most in life are taken from
you too soon.
Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test
Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test
Test
Test
Test
Test Test Test Test
Test
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
You are orphans, earthdeirdre, your homeworld already buried so young among the aeons. Yet now you fill the skies where we watched a million sunsets with flame and contrails, paying no heed to the hard lessons the universe has tried to teach you. Are you a breath of life to invigorate a complacent world, you earthhumans, or an insidious cancer which must be excised?
I
sit in my cubicle, here on the motherworld.
When I die, they
will put my body in a box and
dispose of it in the cold ground.
And in all the million ages to come, I will never
breathe
or laugh or twitch again.
So won't you run and play with me
here among the
teeming mass of humanity?
The universe has
spared us this moment.
You see in this dome the intermingling of native and earth plants. Outside, they are competitors, struggling over the trace elements required for life. Often, one destroys the other. Here, they are tended with care and kept well nourished. They thrive together, and the native fungus does not unleash its terrible defenses. As you can see, competition is unnecessary when resources are plentiful and population growth is controlled.
Although Planet's native life is based, like Earth's, on right-handed DNA, and codes for all the same amino acids, the inevitable chemical and structural differences from a billion years of evolution in an alien environment render the native plant life highly poisonous to humans. Juicy, ripe grenade fruits may look appealing, but a mouthful of organonitrates will certainly change your mind in a hurry.
Of course we'll bundle our MorganNet software with the new network nodes; our customers expect no less of us. We have never sought to become a monopoly. Our products are simply so good that no one feels the need to compete with us.
God does not play dice.
Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded.
Hea’yoepa’hja[‘poehejapha[‘oe
;kheaiaheahhea
this is a test run
this is a test run
this is a test run
this is a test run
this is a test run
this is a test run
this is a test run
this is a test run
this is a test run
this is a test run
TESTING TESTING
turnitin.com
MUST CONTAIN 100 CHARACTERS OF TEXT MUST CONTAIN 100 CHARACTERS OF TEXT
MUST CONTAIN 100 CHARACTERS OF TEXT
MUST CONTAIN 100 CHARACTERS OF TEXT
MUST CONTAIN 100 CHARACTERS OF TEXT
MUST CONTAIN 100 CHARACTERS OF TEXT
MUST CONTAIN 100 CHARACTERS OF TEXT
MUST CONTAIN 100 CHARACTERS OF TEXT
Been having problems…hopefully this one works! Iiiiiiiiiiiiiii aaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllsssssssssssssssssssssssoooooooooooooooo neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddddd 111111111100000000000000000 llllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsssssssssssssssssssssssssssss oh my goodnessss I am hungry,,,,,I wonder what is for lunch today.. I didn’t get any sleep last night I am tired blahhh
Swiich>
dude, that girl i went on a date with last night was really
dumb
<Cindy> fuck you too
<Swiich> shit, wrong
window
DragonSiege:
you people have acronyms for everything
siwelwerd: i can't think
of anything that E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. stands for
computersislove:
im annoyed.
AbnormalMembrane: Wrong suffix.
AbnormalMembrane:
You mean "-ing"
AbnormalMembrane: Sorry. I'm kinda a
grammar Nazi about these things.
<Lacan7>Oh. My bad. I'm so used to speaking english here that I've become a tad rusty on my stupid.
Just a few funnies from www.bash.org If you’re ever bored, check it out. There’ll be some computer jokes you won’t get (that I don’t get) but it’s still totally worth it!
Anselm
Definition of God: That than which no greater can be conceived. [TTWNGCBC]
Avoids arrogant view that we know God’s character
Based in humility
Either God exists in the mind alone or he exists both in the mind and in reality. This argument proves previous sentence wrong because if he only exists in the mind than he can be conceived and therefore by definition, cannot merely exist in the mind, but must exist in the mind and reality.
The argument TTWNGCBC is too powerful and can be used for anything, not just God.
Fool for not having Jesus in your heart.
Believes that there are two ways to conceive the statement TTWNGCBC. The fool can rationalize and conceive the idea of God, the symbol that God is and not to actually grasp God himself. And the rational, intelligent man can actually grasp the concept and God himself.
Arguments to the ontological argument:
1. Too powerful and can apply to anything
2. The Kant argument S|P God+ Exists (эx|(sx))
3. Inappropriate to make conclusions based on theoretical reasoning
Readings Page 65-69
1033-1109
Archbishop of Canterbury
Anselm will forever be associated with the ontological argument for God’s existence, which hold that the idea of God in one’s mind is evidence of a genuinely existing being.
Anselm used the ontological argument first
Claimed God was “That than which no greater can be conceived”
Used the argument that God was/is perfect and to not exist would be imperfect, and since God is perfect, he must exist.
Believes that is a “fool” that does not believe in God and he can’t understand how the fool can grasp the concept that nothing greater could be conceived and yet not believe that there would be a being that was greater than what one could conceive
Believes that there is more than one way to grasp/conceive an idea 1) with the heart and mind and 2) understand the concept, but not the actual entity. I.e. 1) believing and loving God with a head and heart faith and 2) understand the concept in which God is greater that anything we can conceive and not quite believe it whole-heartedly
Ways to overcome the objections: 1) universal, applies to all God’s, since there is only one, then there is no issue. 2) God creates/allowed to be the exception and 3) you can reject both
Rationalism-> relies upon reason alone not on experience.
Empiricism-> Relies upon experience not just rationalization.
Thursday September 19
Psychology – studying behavior scientifically
-Check the research pool
Science?
an approach to answering question about the world around us
case of kitty Genovese, killed outside her New York apartment, 38 witnesses; nobody helped
The scientific method
observe an event
hypothesis
test
analyze results
revising theory/more research
new hypothesis
Steps in the scientific method
observation/question
Ex.1 wonder why nobody helped kitty Genovese
Form hypothesis= a tentative explanation or prediction about some phenomena
Ex. IF more people around, THEN people should be less likely to help (diffusion of responsibility)
Test hypothesis
Conduct research
Ex. Students “participating in a discussion about student issues” via intercom, heard another student choking and calling for help. Group size varied.
Analyze data
Look at results and made a conclusion
Ex. Students responded much more slowly if believed other students were also present
More research and theory building
Theory= set of formal statements that explain how or why events are related to one another
Ex. Further research showed number, immediacy, and strength are factors that influence helping behavior (social impact theory)
New hypothesis derived from theory
New research to test
Ex. Do people tip more when in a bigger group?
Explanation of general principles of certain phenomena with considerable facts to support it
Remains valid only if every new piece of information supports it
Ex. People do tip less when in a larger group If yes, then modify, if no, then strengthens
Approaches to understand cause
hindsight understanding
understanding by prediction
after the fact explanations of why an event/behavior occurred
Ex. Darley and Latane
Drawback- past events can be explained in many ways
Understanding through prediction, control theory building
Uses scientific methods
Tests cause f behavior directly
Advantages: satisfies curiosity, builds knowledge, generates principles that can be applied to new situations
Ex. Applying social impact theory to tipping behavior
Good theories
Development of theories is the strongest way to test scientific understanding of cause because good theories create an integrated set of predictions
Organize information in a meaningful way
Are testable- make clear predictions
Predictions are supported by research
Conforms to law of parsimony- explains behavior or events in the simplest manner
Defining and measuring variables
variable- any characteristic that can vary Ex. Stress, weight, reaction time
terms can have many meanings so in science experimenter operationally defines the concepts he/she is studying
operational defining- defining variable in terms of specific procedures used to produce or measure it
if you want to study stress how would you operationally define it?
Ex. Muscle tension, fidgeting
If you wanted to study driving ability how would you operationally define it?
How many driving tickets over a period of time
Methods of measurement
self-report
ask people to report on their own knowledge, beliefs, feelings, experiences, behaviors
via questionnaires, interviews etc.
depends on whether people respond honestly
limitations- social desirable bias (desire to make good impression), interviewers behavior can influence results
Ex. False allegations of abuse
reports by others
learn about behaviors by reports from others who know the individual
Ex. Parents, spouses, teacher, students (course evaluation)
Limitations- accuracy- answers situational specificity, behavior description in this situation by a specific person, would it still occur in another situation?
physiological measures
E.g. blood pressure, hormonal secretions, biochemical process in brain
Limitation- difficult to know what changes mean in terms of mental events, Ex. Increase heart rate linked to thoughts? emotions?
recording overt behaviors
often need ‘coding’ system to categorize specific behaviors
people trained so there is consistency in identifying behaviors among researchers
limitation- unreliability of observers
unobtrusive measures often needed
records behaviors in a way that keeps participants unaware they are being observed
archival measures often can be used
already existing documents used to gather information about people’ behavior
Ex. Birth, death, prison records
Methods of research ‘our tools’
Descriptive research
describe behavior of an organism in a natural setting
case studies, naturalistic observation, surveys
correlational studies
is there a relationship among variables?
Experimental methods
is there a ‘cause and effect’ relationship?
Case studies
In depth analysis of individual, group or event
Advantages- useful for rare phenomenon, may challenge validity of theories
Disadvantages- poor method of determining cause-effect relations, generalizations questionable, researcher bias
Naturalistic observations
observation of behavior in a natural setting
advantage- provides a rich description of behavior
disadvantage- does not permit clear causal conclusions
researcher bias
surveys
information is gathered through the use of questionnaires or surveys
efficient way of collecting large amounts of information about a topic
two important concepts 1)population- all of the individuals about whom we are interested in drawing a conclusion 2) sample- subset of individuals drawn from the larger population of interest
cannot study entire population- need sample
need ‘representative’ sample- must reflect important characteristics of the population
must use random sampling
each member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample
must use random sampling
each member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample
major drawbacks to surveys- unrepresentative samples can lead to faulty generalizations, surveys rely on participants’ self-reports, data cannot be used to draw conclusions about cause-and-effect
correlational research
elegant in it’s design
researches measure one variable called (x)
researcher measures second variable called (y)
researcher statistically determines if (x) and (y) are related
correlation limitation
correlation does not men causation
correlation can show an association NOT a cause
correlation coefficient
correlations are mathematically described by a correlation coefficient
correlation coefficients indicate 2 things about a relationship- strength and direction
coefficient is a # designated by r
ranges from -1.0 to +10
Sign indicates direction
Strength of correlation
absolute size shows strength of relationship
higher the absolute number- stronger the relationship- a correlation of -80 reflects as powerful a relationship as one of +80
a correlation of 0.00 means no relationship – E.g., GPA and student ID #
all correlations range from – 1.0 to +1.0
Advantages or correlational studies
show the strength of relationship present
can be used to make predictions
identifies ‘real’ world associations
can be useful where experiments are unethical E.g. effects of alcohol on fetus among pregnant women
disadvantages of correlational studies
can’t determine cause and effect relationships
little or no control(experimental manipulation) of variables is possible
relationship may be accidental or due to a third, unmeasured factor common to 2 variables that are measured
September 21
Experiments: examining cause and effect
experiments are a powerful tool in determining cause and effect relations
The logic of experimentation
Ex. Test whether noise influences students’ ability to learn new information. Each student is placed alone in a room, has 30 minutes to study five pages of text book material and then takes a ten minute multiple choice test
An experiment has three essential characteristics:
the researcher manipulates one variable
Ex. the researcher has control of the level of noise in each room
the researcher measures whether this manipulation produces changes in the second variable
Ex. The researcher uses the multiple choice test to see whether the first variable had diverse effects
The researcher tries to control for extraneous factors that might influence the outcome of the experiment
Ex. We would not want one group to do better because they had easier text book material to learn or an easier multiple choice test
Independent and dependant variables
independent Variable refers to the factor that it is manipulated by the researcher Ex. The noise in each students’ room
dependant variable- is the factor that is measured by the experimenter Ex. The amount of learning (the dependant variable can be influenced by the independent variable- the dependant variable depends upon the independent variable)
independent variable is the cause and dependant variable is the effect
the researcher could go more in depth into the experiment Ex. See how much stress is generated from the task or see how many times the students change their answers
Experimental and control groups
an experimental group is the group that receives a treatment (active level) of the independent variable
a control group is not exposed to treatment, it receives a zero-level of the independent variable
the purpose of the control group is to provide a standard level in which the experimental group can be compared
the variable that the experimental group is exposed to is called the experimental condition the control group experiences the control condition which lacks the independent variable
experiments usually include several experimental groups plus a control group, however in other cases the concept of a control group may not apply
Two basic ways to design an experiment
1st way - have different participants in several varying conditions, however sometimes by chance groups will wholly lack qualities vice versa which ruins the accuracy of the experiment
to deal with issues of the experimental group, researchers typically use random assignment ( each participant has an equal likelihood of being assigned to any one group in an experiment), this helps balance conditions generally in the experiment
2nd way- expose each participant to all the conditions, this way intelligence, stress level and all other characteristics of each person in the experimental group will not affect the experiment because there results will be consistent
Manipulating one independent variable: Effects of Fetal alcohol exposure on intellectual development
we can’t randomly assign pregnant mothers to experimental or control groups, so researchers are using animal models to establish a causal relationship between fetal alcohol exposure and later neurological and behavioral deficits
guinea pigs were experimented on because they have the same length pregnancy and a brain area ( hippocampus) which is involved in learning and memory for both humans and guinea pigs
the pregnant pigs were divided into three groups- the experimental group was given a dose of alcohol each day, a control group received an equal amount of water, while another control group received sugar water
all the babies were given the exact same treatment and then their intellectual ability was assessed using a water maze task
the task was placing the guinea pigs in an opaque water pool where they had to find a hidden platform, the guinea pigs were timed everyday to see if they memorized where the platform was- the result was that the control group was significantly faster in completing the task
Manipulating two independent variables: Effects of alcohol and expectations on sexual arousal (zimmy can’t get hard)
many women and men report that alcohol enhances their sexual arousal
do chemical properties directly influence sexual arousal? is it psychological? Is it the expectation to be more aroused that increases sexual responsiveness?
The experimental group was divided into two, one group having alcohol and the other group drinking a substance that tasted like alcohol
The groups were then shown pornography and they were tested via questionnaires on their sexual arousal
Participants who were lead to believe that they have consumed alcohol were more sexually aroused, produces more intense sexual fantasies, lower sexual inhibitions and greater interest in viewing scenes of sexual violence
However alcohol actually decreases men’s sexual arousal because it is a depressant and it suppresses neural activity
Experimental versus descriptive/correlational approaches
there are three different ways in which experiments differ from descriptive and correlational approaches:
the researcher manipulates one or more independent variables and measures their affect on other dependant variables
research it typically conducted in more natural settings
investigators cannot keep extraneous factors constant
Threats to the validity of research
validity- refers to how well an experimental procedure actually tests what it is designed to test
internal validity- represents the degree to which the experiment supports clear causal conclusions
Analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
St. Thomas Aquinas perceived the question of god’s existence as a matter of experience, as opposed to one of rationality or faith. His particular view, known as the cosmological argument, is based on the fundamental experiences of motion and change, as well as that of purpose or design. His argument is a question about the beginning of existence, or the cause of all causes, whom itself is uncaused. He believed that the cause of all causes is what we understand to be god. He puts forth an argument based on the following premises.
First, Aquinas argues the principle causes of motion and change. He reasons that everything that exists as it does, exists that way because it had the potential to exist that way first. Then for it to actually exist in that way, something that currently exists as such has to cause it to change from potentiality to actuality. In his own words, “what is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it” (74). His argument states that because every effect has a cause, and in turn every cause has its own cause, that there must have been a first cause, which we have come to know as god. He reinforced this argument using the example of motion, stating that “whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved” (74). This example of motion relies on the same principle, that for something to be moving, it must have been moved, and for the mover to have been moving, it itself must have been moved and so on. Therefore there must have been a primary or first mover, which is god.
The underlying premise behind either of these examples is one of existence. “If at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence – which is absurd” (75). Aquinas encompasses what is essentially his first main argument in this fundamental idea.
These arguments attempt to refute the concept of infinite regress, an idea that proposes that an infinite amount of causes have preceded the present causes. Aquinas argues that infinite regress is absurd and that therefore there was a first cause or first mover. However an objection can be raised to oppose this argument. The objection looks at our ability to comprehend concepts such as infinite regress. Because our lack of comprehensive capacity leaves us unable to grasp the concept of infinite regress, does not mean that the perception of god as a being is the only possible truth, and that perhaps our inability to comprehend infinite regress is proof that we are unable of comprehending “god”. This objection is a valid inquiry into the comprehensive ability of humanity, however regardless of our ability to comprehend what the beginning is; a beginning must have in fact occurred for the present to be currently taking place. Whether god is a being as many philosophers like Aquinas believed, or rather an occurrence, remains to be seen but Aquinas’ argument cannot be proved otherwise.
In his second main argument, Aquinas attempts to make sense of the purpose or order of things. He argues that unintelligent things, natural things, advance towards an end by almost always acting in the way that achieves the best possible result. And since these things are unintelligent themselves, something with knowledge and intelligence must be directing towards that result. He states that, “whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it is being directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence” (75). He argues that this intelligence is god, and that the purpose and order of all things is defined and in turn directed by god.
One might argue, however, that it is the very basic need or instinct to survive which moves natural living things towards an end. That the only way a natural thing can exist is if the natural thing that came before it survived to reproduce. The need for survival is the very basic principle of living natural things and is how natural things continue to exist. The objection occurs in both the source of, and the purpose for this basic instinct. Firstly, the need to survive is as old as living things themselves, for if nothing survived, then nothing would exist today. However, that does not necessitate that an omnipotent and omniscient being has designed it this way. For if a natural cause other than what we conceive to be god were to be the cause of life, the instinctual movement by a natural thing towards an end would still exist. For the things that are willing and able to survive, do survive, and thus continue life. As for the purpose of life in general, perhaps the evolution of life has given itself purpose, and that is to continue life, to exist.
Although the proposition of life evolving and developing a purpose for itself, without an underlying reason or design is an interesting possibility, there is still a problem regarding the original cause of the existence of life. Life cannot create itself out of nothing, for it can only reproduce itself. Within the assumption that infinite regress is impossible, we can also assume that at one time natural life must have ceased to exist. The question of how life itself came into existence then is one that life cannot answer for itself. Therefore the existence of some being, which we understand to be god, as the creator of all life is as good as any argument for its existence. It would also make sense then, that if god were to create life, he would give it the means to grow, evolve, and redefine itself or give itself purpose.
St. Thomas Aquinas introduces two distinct parts to his cosmological argument, one involving a first cause, or the initiator of existence, the other involving a purpose or design for the existence of life. After analysis, careful objection, and an analysis of those objections, I have come to the conclusion that although Aquinas’ arguments prove essentially nothing as truth, they do prove to be a possibility which one cannot refute. The theory of a first cause or first mover, is as good as any when considering the origins of existence. Whether that first cause is an omnipotent and omniscient being, with which we have come to associate the name god, is undeniably possible, but has been in no way proven to be the case. As for the argument of god as the designer of life and the source of its purpose, I have come to the realization that although life may be able to evolve and give itself purpose, it cannot explain its own existence. What we conceive to be “God”, as an explanation for the existence of life, is as good and valid a possibility as can be conceived by humanity, however it is still only possibility.
The London Free Press
369 York St. P.O. Box 2280
London Ontario, Canada
N6A 4G1
Re: ‘WANTED’ by John Herbert
April 1, 2006
John Herbert’s article concerning London’s fugitives is absolutely essential to have in the newspaper. It is extremely important for citizens to realize who may be lurking around in their environment. It is also critical for Londoners to know who these fugitives are incase a citizen spots them. I think that this type of report should be updated and published every week in the newspaper. It is crucial for Londoners to be aware that high-risk fugitives may be in the city and can be a threat to society. I think it is also imperative for Londoners to know what to do if one of these criminals is spotted since police cannot be everywhere at all times. I think it should be mandatory to include a report on the proper steps to take if a criminal is spotted. Some citizens may be taken aback at the number of un-captured criminals there are still prowling around London, but it is important to know that the police are doing everything they can to arrest these fugitives, and letting Londoners know that these people are still out there is very newsworthy. In my mind, it is better to be safe than sorry. Thank you for letting the public know that we could be in the company of these potentially dangerous people. Now we know that we must take proper precautions at all times to stay safe.
Sincerely,
Philosophy Test
What is “rich text format”? I cannot believe that I have not heard of it before. I am hopeful that this test will prove successful.
Apparently this has to be more than twenty words of text. I would have just submitted “Here’s some text”, but I guess Turnitin wanted more. I guess that’ll be all.
Tester reunvpoiuewijw richjw oich ewoirh ioewh rfoiuhew icoh ewoiurh feuwh iuoewh foiuh ewrh feiur reunvpoiuewijw richjw oich ewoirh ioewh rfoiuhew icoh ewoiurh feuwh iuoewh foiuh ewrh feiurh foeh rfoiuh efouh euofh eruihf euiorh foewh rfuoewh rfuh efouh weourh fewouhr fouwh erfouwh erh ewoufh oewh orewuh fouewh rouh rewfouh eoufh wefouh eoufh feouh euhf uh fureh fuh
Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run Phil Test Run
Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith
Though a theist, Kierkegaard argues that God’s existence can not be proved. He explains that neither reason nor empirical evidence are capable of doing so. Because reason and empirical evidence and not able to prove God’s existence, realizing ones own faith is the only way to find God. He describes a ‘leap of faith’ in which the individual realizes his/her belief on a personal level. The ‘leap of faith’ is a moment when one realizes that by the act of attempting to deduce or perceive God’s existence one already believes. If one did not assume God’s existence prior to attempting to prove it, there would be nowhere to begin. Kierkegaard pulls one in by explaining the presupposition, then argues that this presupposition is faith. He surprises the reader by identifying the existence of faith within. The presupposition of God’s existence is what renders arguments for his existence inadequate. However, it is this very preposition that proves the individual believes in God, without any proof.
Kierkegaard highlights the importance of the individual in contributing to God’s existence. He uses an example of a Cartesian doll, in which only by letting go the doll is able to stand upside down. By ceasing to argue for God’s existence one is finally able to realize the existence. It is as if trying to prove his existence merely confuses the matter. Because it is impossible to know the unknown one must turn to faith as the only way to find God.
Faith is not the only way to find God. Kierkegaard’s ‘leap of faith’ leaves the individual with few options. Consider an individual who does not believe in God. This individual would not presuppose Gods existence and therefore would never experience the ‘leap of faith’. Because of the failure of reason and experience there would be no possible way for the individual to find God. However, one could argue that for some individuals experience can lead to faith. This can happen in any number of ways, from a personal experience in ones life to reasoning from scientific evidence. However, in this circumstance an individual may not be aware of what he/she is reasoning towards. An atheist may be astounded by a biological miracle or perhaps by the complexity of logic and reason. The individual observes the order in the universe and is convinced that something unknown has caused this order. The ‘leap of faith’ still exists, however it occurs once an individual has these experiences and reasoned towards God’s existence.
Just as Kierkegaard argues that faith is a subjective thing, so too is the evidence. What one individual considers evidence may be disputable to another. Nevertheless, the individual who believes the evidence to be solid has reasoned that it is evidence of God’s existence. This is not to say that one can reason toward the unknown. I agree that it is impossible to reason the unknown. However, similar to Kierkegaard’s example of the stone(92), one has reasoned that what exists is evidence of God’s existence, not that the evidence exists. This reasoning gives one faith in God’s existence. Therefore the ‘leap of faith’ occurs after reasoning based on experience.
If one agrees with Kierkegaard’s presupposition that God is the unknown then there still is a difference between having evidence for God’s existence and knowing the complete nature of God.1 Kierkegaard assumes that because one can not know the unknown it is impossible to reason that the unknown exists.
Why leap’s Bad
Kierkegaard in itself is reasoning out God’s existence. He sites the existence of this leap as evidence for one to believe. Though this is still not proof of God’s existence, he has almost made his own form of empirical evidence.
Philosophy Essay Test Run: Try # 2
<insert something clever here>
<Apparently I need at least twenty words to submit something. I find that somewhat biased. You could conceivably write a good essay in less than twenty words. Oh, I got it! One word: bribe. Or blackmail. Just kidding Shannon if you have bothered to read this. I kind of hope that you haven’t.>
Hello,
I am so pleased to be in this class. I like the way you teach. This computer technology drives me crazy. I am trying to submit this testing assignment and it keeps telling me that I am doing something wrong. First told me it has to be in rtf format, then asks me to type more than 100 words. Oh, God, I wish we never had to be involved with all these crazy technology things. We made them and now they put us in trouble all the time. I wonder, maybe one day comes that we regret all these. We are destroying our lives with too many complicated tools. Any technology human being made, became some kind of trouble. They are helpful in a way, but too much trouble and problems and time wasting sometimes. We made bombs, we made guns, we made computers and then computer viruses, we made cell phones which are a huge headache now and they cause too much noise specially when I try to focus on what my profs teach in class and suddenly they start ringing and that is it, I lose my focus. We made televisions which are not good for your eyes and they never say any truths in them, we made modern way of clothing which causes many people kill each other and steal from each other to buy beautiful clothing. What is technology then? Technology is a way to destroy humans and also this beautiful nature.
Earth Science 088F 001 Saturday December 9 7:00 PM
Critical Thinking 021 001Tuesday December 12 9:00 AM
Psychology 020 001 Tuesday December 12 7:00 PM
Political Science 020E 002 Monday December 18 2:00 PM
Introduction to Philosophy 020E 038 Monday December 18 7:00 PM
1 I will not dispute this, however his argument does depend on the definition.
A HINDU CREATION STORY HINDUS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS
A LEADER WE CAN BELIEVE IN SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN
ACTS 10 FIRST GENTILE TO HEAR AND BELIEVE THE
Tags: believe -, not believe, change, believe