I BELIEVE THAT WE DONT HAVE TO CHANGE

BECAUSE I BELIEVE EVERY CHILD AND EVERY SENIOR
009AR WHEN YOU BELIEVE FROM IN THE MIDST OF
1 FOLKRELIGION MONGOLS BELIEVE THAT THE TRUCULENT SPIRITS OF

13 IT MATTERS WHAT WE BELIEVE JOHN L SAXON
226 WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE OPENING PRAYER HOLY SPIRIT
22ND ANNUAL CALVERT CLIFFS “BELIEVE IN TOMORROW CHILDREN’S FOUNDATION”

I believe - That we don't have to change friends if we understand that friends change

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

Arguments to the ontological argument:


Readings Page 65-69


Thursday September 19

Psychology – studying behavior scientifically


-Check the research pool

- [email protected]


Science?

The scientific method

  1. observe an event

  2. hypothesis

  3. test

  4. analyze results

  5. revising theory/more research

  6. new hypothesis

Steps in the scientific method

Approaches to understand cause

Good theories

Defining and measuring variables

Methods of measurement

  1. self-report

  1. reports by others

  1. physiological measures

  1. recording overt behaviors

Methods of research ‘our tools’

Descriptive research

correlational studies

Experimental methods

Case studies

Naturalistic observations

surveys

correlational research

correlation limitation

correlation coefficient

Strength of correlation

Advantages or correlational studies

disadvantages of correlational studies

September 21

Experiments: examining cause and effect

The logic of experimentation

  1. the researcher manipulates one variable

  1. the researcher measures whether this manipulation produces changes in the second variable

  1. The researcher tries to control for extraneous factors that might influence the outcome of the experiment

Independent and dependant variables

Experimental and control groups

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

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

Manipulating two independent variables: Effects of alcohol and expectations on sexual arousal (zimmy can’t get hard)

Experimental versus descriptive/correlational approaches

    1. the researcher manipulates one or more independent variables and measures their affect on other dependant variables

    2. research it typically conducted in more natural settings

    3. investigators cannot keep extraneous factors constant

Threats to the validity of research



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