Assignment No. 4 in Introduction to Philosophy with Logic

1. Pascal writes in this essay:

. . . there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite number. So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is.

In what sense of the word “exist” is God said to exist? I.e. consider the different senses of existence for the following kinds of things: (1) matter, (2) mind, (3) numbers, (4) imaginary numbers, (5) space, and (6) nothing. How the ontological argument for God’s existence related to the problem of existential import in elementary logic?

2. Discuss the following criticism of Pascal’s Wager:

Pascal’s wager suffers from the logical fallacy of false dilemma, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:

1. the Christian God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in the Bible, or
2. no God exists.

The wager cannot rule out the possibility that there is a God who instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith. In societies where faith is often rewarded by economic and social benefit, its potential moral significance is dubious.

It also assumes faith costs nothing, but there may be both direct (time, health, wealth) costs and opportunity costs: those who choose to believe in, say, scientific theories that may contradict scripture may be
able to discover things and accomplish things the believer could not.

Is the opportunity cost of belief in any manner comparable with an infinite payoff? Can the false dilemma be avoided by acknowledging the following Hindu belief? Krishna states:

With whatever motive people worship Me, I fulfill their desires accordingly. People worship Me with different motives. Would a God who understands the limitations of human reasoning permit any belief which is appropriate to the believer?

Source: Reading for Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction to Philosophical Thinking ver. 0.21, An Open Source Reader
Lee Archie and John G. Archie

Deadline of Submission: March 12, 2011 (Saturday), 11:59PM


Anonymous said...

Gela Faith N.Cortado BSA1

1.God said to exist in sense of the word "exist" is (2)mind.
Objections to the Ontological Argument:
You cannot get outside of a conception to reality: the argument compares the conception of existing in the mind with the conception of existing in reality as well.It deals only with concepts,not things in the external world.
Reply:No,the comparison is between the mind alone and in the mind and in reality.Both of these are thought of as they are,not thought of as in the mind.

Existence is not a predicate:we cannot compare 100 dollars with 100 real dollars.One doesn't laud someone you are to marry to your folks,and the add,"Oh by the way,that person really exists."We assume existence,we do not prove existence(Cf..the problem of existential import).

Rrply:Even though we often assume existence,we do not always do so.Consider the sign by a curb:"No Parking." No parking of what?

2.Pascal's Pensees reveals a skepticism with respect to natural theology.Pascal pointed out that the most important things in life cannot be known with certainty;even so we must make choices.His deep mysticism and religious commitment is reflective of Christian existentialism.
Maybe yes,the opportunity cost of belief in any manner comparable with an infinite payoff.Maybe yes,we can avoid the false dilemna.

Anonymous said...

Jaenin R. Infiesto

The ontological argument states that St. Anselm believes in God through his own intuition and reasoning . he believes that God exist not only in his mind but in reality as well .
he does not need evidence to certify God's existence he just need to believe in order to understand that God exist,there is clarification of faith in his argument. this argument is somehow related to the problem of existential import because existential import in elementary logic tries to answer the existence of things through the use of evidence or proofs but no one can find enough evidence to support the idea that God really exist. in the ontological argument , God exist in the mind of a person. Even if we try to consider the different senses of existence , it cannot supply the answer to the question whether God exist.

2. Maybe yes, we can avoid the false dilemma , everyone of us have our own desire and motives and sometimes this desire has affected the way we view things around us especially when it comes to our beliefs. we do not know exactly how things around us move , and yet we are still here making choices , doing the things we have decide to do . maybe God would understand that the human mind is very limited. in fact human reasoning permit any belief which is appropriate to the believer for example if a person believes that there is no God and that he is the only one who could answer the problem in his life then so be it.

Anonymous said...

Jayar T. Custodio

1. Ontological argument is like St. anselm does it says that in seeking to believe in order to understand the truth and existence of God rather than seeking to understand in order to believe the truth and existence of god is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

2.yes we can avoid the false dilleman doing this
Often referred to as the "either/or" fallacy, the writer tries to convince the reader to accept his/her proposition because s/he suggests that there are only two possibilities, one that is truly bad or the other less awful (the one likely to be favored by the writer). This is a false dilemma because usually other alternatives do exist but are not explored.

"Either you let me raise taxes, or I will have to lay off 100 police and fire fighters in order to balance the city's budget."

The way to avoid a false dilemma is to remember that often there are many different ways to resolve a problem, not just the two offered by the writer. In the example above, a city could raise revenues by increasing the taxes on gasoline, liquor, tobacco or by increasing the fees at its airports, harbor, parks, etc. We needn't think that the only alternatives are raising property taxes and lay offs.

Anonymous said...

B.S.B.A (T-F)

1. All of the atheists are sitting around waiting for God to prove Himself to them. Why don't they seek God? It's because they want to live their lives without any authority over them.

By simply not providing proof of His existence, God has allowed us to reject Him. Those who want God will seek Him and those who don't, won't. And everyone eventually gets what he or she really wants; either to be with Him or to be independent of Him. Except to be independent of our Creator is like a tree branch asking to be independent of the tree root.

You have falsely assumed that the God who exists is the same as described in a bible or bible-like book. You assume that there are both a hell and a heaven, and that somehow these places involve the aforementioned God.

A belief in God is the first necessary step to seek Him; a belief that He doesn't exist is the first necessary step to reject Him.

Heaven isn't the reward, God Himself is the only reward.

2.We're not choosing a religion, we're choosing whether to seek our Creator or not. Once we make that basic decision of whether we want to know our Creator or not, then we can think about some religion that might help us to find Him.
You certainly can choose to believe as long as that belief is rational. We have no idea if we were created or not and no way to assess the probabilities. So a belief in God is as rational as a belief that He doesn't exist.
Pascal was not writing about a fake belief. We should look into our own hearts and find why we don't want to seek our Creator. Why don't we want to seek God? It is because God would be an authority over us, telling us how to live our lives and we hate that idea. In essence, we don't want God because we've already taken His position

Anonymous said...

Garganera, Katherine C. BSA-I Logic


Only human mind conceptualized or assigns to create things or things to exist.

For example: the things that we are using they will not exist if there is no one who created it. The numbers that are created by the ancient people still there also creators who create them. With the existence of God only human conceptualized that there is God like the people who are creating things out of their mind, God will not exist to a person if he does think that there is God or there is someone who created him.

2.Pascal states that, if you believe in God and you turned out incorrect, you will lost nothing. But if you don't believe in God and turned out incorrect, you will go to hell.

The statement of the argument is reliable and can be defend but if you believe in God and you turned out incorrect you will lost nothing? There are some things that will lost from you you will regret about the moneys that you have lost because of the donations and your money offerings because of believing that there is God., and your time that had been wasted of going to church every Sunday to have the mass so something will lost.

Anonymous said...

Joseph Romero

1.the onthological argument state that st. anselm believe in the existence of god even if he don't see it yet. alhough st. anselm is a philosopher and as we know philosoper a skeptic person and Anselm starts with premises that do not depend on experience for their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that God exists
we do not always believe in one thing but if we see it we believe it like and some times iven if we dont see one thing yet we already believe like existence of god I beleve n god although i dont see him yet and that call a faith.

2.A false dilemma arises when we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two and only two mutually exclusive optioins, when that is untrue.
yes we can avoid false dilemma because everyone of us have a rigth to choose and it our own how to choose and what we will going to choose

Anonymous said...


1. The mind of a person assign that there is a thing exists considering that in reality there is nothing.
If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away.
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.

2.Maybe yes, we can avoid the false dilemma. Scientist relies on what they feel in the existence of God. Unless you don’t experiment that God really exist then they don’t prove that God really exists. And for the religious person God could not be experimented. The argument about “if you believe in god and turn out to be incorrect you have lost nothing. If you don’t believe in god and turn out incorrect, you will go to hell. Then it is foolish to be an ethics. So it is safe to believe that God really exist.

Anonymous said...

Janine M. Gonzales
1.All thngs in this world is exist. But sometime we want to prove that it is true. Like mind, mind is odd too. We have many question in our mind, but we don't know how to answer it. Without mind, we can't think that their is god. All we believe is came from mind and we are the one who conceptualize everything.
2.Pascal said that faith costs nothing. He believe in god, But he can't say the consequences.
Because of our Faith that god is exist..Sometime we need to think the positive and negative effect to ourselve.

Anonymous said...

Renato A. Punzalan
BSA-1 Introduction to Philosophy with Logic

1.Ontological arguments for God’s existence related to the problem of existential import in elementary logic in such a way that: We as Catholic knows that God’s exist spiritual and physically thru people or thru everything around us. He exist to all creation we just need to have FAITH, a beliefs that within our heart. A belief that all thing are possible with God. God will give to his people those things people asks if that will be for their good and will be for their betterment. God blesses human all ways, without us seeing Him. That existence of God is somewhat related to existential import in elementary logic in such a way that ; People have already basis for such things like sometime we declared that there must be some things a certain kind. This special assumption, by the subject term of a universal proposition has at least one member. It is also proven that kind of assumptions exist or has a precedent and there are valid proof for such.

2. Hindu belief partly could help on the dilemma to be avoided but not totally because Hinduism is not just one purpose of human life, but four: Dharma which means fulfilling one’s purpose; Artha means Prosperity; Karma means desire, sexuality, enjoyment and Moksha means enlightenment. Pascal’s wager suffers from the logical fallacy of false dilemma, relying on his assumptions but if he only believes that there is God who is a true God, that rewards and forgives human as long as you have faith it will be not dubious. I disagree with Krishna states….. because GOD is GOD. He is not the God who chooses who ever he wants . God will fulfill people desires if it is due to them and will be beneficial to all. Yes, people do worship God different motives, but doesn’t mean God will be like them. YES, true that God understands the limitations of human reasoning that is why definitely even us not yet asking our wishes, HE knows and will give to his people whatever is due to them.

Anonymous said...

Jhoyce Tolentino BSA-1 Introduction to Philosophy with Logic

1. My understanding in Pascal’s essay is that numbers are infinite and we can never know what it is because it is infinite. It is false that it is even or odd. It is like our belief that there is God without knowing what he is. We know the existence of finite because we are also finite but we have limits. God is so completely different from us that there is no way for us to comprehend him. We can know that God is, but we cannot know what God is.

Considering the different senses of existence for the following kinds of things: (1) matter, (2) mind, (3) numbers, (4) imaginary numbers, (5) space, and (6) nothing is said to exist because it is our human mind who conceptualize its existence. If we confined to our mind that God was nothing, then God would not exist.

2. If we believe God exists, and God in fact does exist, then we will gain infinite happiness. However, if we believe God exists, and God in fact does not exist, then we will have no payoff. If we do not believe God exists, and God in fact does exist, then we will gain infinite pain. However, if we believe God does not exist, and God in fact does not exist, then we will have no payoff.

Anonymous said...

Gelardine Aldema

1. In the sense of the word exist is god said to exist, we consider our different senses. We can say that God exist trough matter by your existing in the space that you occupy, we could supposed that someone give life to us because of a particular space were we exist there is no need to supposed because it is made by nature.. We conceived matter by looking the world and contemplate the whole and every part of it. We can find nothing but a great believing which we subdivided into an infinite believe of lesser believing which again subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faith that can trace and explain. The curios of means to ends, throughout all nature resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the production of human believe and faith. Since then, the effects resemble with each other that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of human. By this argument we can prove at once the existence of God and the similarity to this is the human believes and faith in what you want to believe. On the ontological argument was St. Anselm explain that he believes in God because he understand the nature of God’s existence. The exact similarity of the cases gives us a perfect assurance and stronger evidence is never desired nor sought after. According to St. Thomas Aquinas who uses reasoning alone, the summarizing philosophical reasoning that God is exist without the explanation.
2. On Pascal Wager criticism, we can avoid false dilemma because every one of us has a choice and motives. We have choices whether to believe or not to believe and we have motives in believing on something. We also believe that the religious person rely on what they feel. We have different motives in believing in the existence of God. For me, there is nothing wrong if we believe in God, there will be a positive thing that will happen when we believe in God. But then again, we have our own choices and motives. On Pascal’s essay, the wager cannot rule the possibility that God is exist, he didn’t mention the consequences in believing God existence. He just point out the positive effect and he didn’t mention the negative effect. Sometimes our desire affected our decisions and choices. If we desire to do something, our choice has to do something with it. Pascal say’s that it is safe to believe in God but then again we have our own choice.

Anonymous said...

Joan Ericka Suan B.

1. The Ontological arguments is based on the notion that the concept of God as the greatest being implies that God exists—if not, there could be something greater, namely an existent greatest being—but this being would be God.
Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.
Existing both in the mind and in reality is greater than existing solely in the mind. Therefore, this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as exists in the mind. The human mind conceptualized the things to exist.
2. Pascal's Wager is application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three 'wagers' which appear in his Pensées, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues that it is always a better to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. In his argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal's states that God carefully (or belief in any other religious system with a similar reward and punishment scheme), you would come out with the following possibilities: You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven. You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing. You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again. You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished. From these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal deduced that it would be better to believe in God unconditionally. It is a classic application of game theory to itemize options and payoffs and is valid within its assumptions. But we have a choice to believe or not to believe that God exists. W If we believe in God we lost nothing. And if we don’t believe in God we’ll go to hell. It’s up to us if we believe or not. We are free to choose what we want.

Post a Comment

Infolinks In Text Ads