Essay --

Skepticism In Meditation 1, Descartes is confronted by the idea that throughout his life he has been taught numerous false truths. As his metaphysical knowledge is based on the things which he has been taught, they too are proven false and he is left without any indubitable ideas or beliefs. After Descartes puts all he knows under doubt, he begins to attempt to regain his knowledge of the world by thinking exclusively of absolute truths. On this mission, he encounters three arguments for accepting knowledge and beliefs as true and unfaltering. Through the course of the following paragraphs, I plan to dissect the different arguments and show how each of them test the validity of true knowledge. Having been faced with the idea that his current wisdom is false, Descartes begins doubting his ideas and opinions as he feels that it will allow him to seek a studier foundation for knowledge. Rather than doubt every one of his opinions individually, he reasons that he might cast them all into doubt if he can doubt the foundations and basic principles upon which his opinions are founded. By comparing his beliefs to an apple basket and a rot in an apple to the falsity of opinion, Descartes reasons that by dumping all the apples/ beliefs, it will be easier to remove the rotten ones. He wants to remove all the false belief he currently wrongly holds true because having one false belief leads to having other false ideas as well. Descartes thinks this method of investigation and trial is defendable as beliefs are not independent of one another and only by doing this will he be able to attain indubitable knowledge. Starting from a blank slate, he plans to build back his knowledge one clea r and distinct proposition at a time. While Descartes is... ...nto doubt beliefs based on sense perception and on scientific ideas. Ideas such as gravity get dismissed because one doesn't know if it is simply something that occurs in dreams and whether instead levitation is a reality. Descartes in the beginning of Meditation 1 says that â€Å"arithmetic, geometry and other subjects of this kind, which deal only with the simplest and most general things, regardless of whether they really exist in nature or not, contain something certain and indubitable. For whether I am awake or asleep, two and three added together are five†. He goes on to also explain that a square has only four sides in both a dream state and not dream state. Therefore, we can still trust other beliefs of the world, such as concepts that deal with the most simple and general things; just not on the beliefs that are based off the senses. This brings us to the third

No definition of a miracle is adequate Essay

Many philosophers have attempted to define what exactly constitutes a miracle in a number of ways outlining definitions which contain the criteria for what phenomena can be counted as miraculous. Whether a definition is adequate seems highly subjective but will likely be one that is acceptable by non-Christians as well as Christians who in all probability will want a definition that accepts many of the miracle in the Bible to indeed be miraculous. Mackie’s definition of miracles describing them as events that occur when the world is not left alone and is intruded by something that is not part of the natural order necessitates that miracles are caused by a supernatural entity which may be considered to be God. This appears to suggest that his definition would indeed be adequate for some Christians given that it sets apart miracles from coincidences turning them into occurrences which could provide evidence for their faith. Moreover it allows a more specific idea of what constitutes a miracles disallowing events with an entirely naturalistic explanation maintaining them as unique events. However, Hick likely would criticise Mackie’s arguments for not be adequate given the ambiguity of what the natural order and the laws that govern it are. Hick suggested that laws were generalisations that are formed after events have happened, suggesting that that the natural order couldn’t be intruded upon. Also it may be that what is perceived to be an intrusion by something outside of the natural order is actually just a lack of understanding of the natural order on our part. This means that though an event such as the Moon Landing would have been defined as inadequate centuries ago, today it would not. This undermines the adequacy of the definition given that what it encompasses will change with time. A further issue with the adequacy of Mackie’s definition is that it could be argued to not be sufficiently specific given that it makes no attempt to define what exactly constitutes something distinct from the natural order, and it may in fact not be God. This would undermine its adequacy for Christians who believe that God is responsible for causing miracles and may not accept they are caused by other beings. Swinburne’s definition of a miracle appears to resolve this issue defining miracles as a violation of a law of nature by a god (a very powerful rational being who is not a material object). That said, the requirement for God to intervene in the world poses a number of challenges to Swinburne’s’ definition especially given that God’s need to intervene in his creation contradicts the idea that he is an all powerful being if the world requires changes. Additionally philosophers like Wiles would argue that if God has the ability to intervene in the world in order to perform miracles in certain instances then his failure to prevent evil and suffering in the world undermines his characteristic of omni-benevolence. For this reason a definition that requires God’s intervention to cause miracles may be inadequate given the contradictions that would occur if such an event happened. On the other hand, many Christians do accept that God intervenes in the world and if so this definition of miracles may indeed be adequate also determining whether God is responsible for an event may be impossible as it may just be due to limited understanding of events. Additionally, Swinburne’s definition is undermined by Hick’s challenge arguably even more so than Mackie’s given his explicit use of the term ‘natural laws’ and also would likely be subject to change as understanding changes. Holland’s definition of miracles appears to avoid the contractions associated with Swinburne and Mackie’s explanations not requiring the physical intervention of God suggesting from the outset that it may be more adequate. This is because Holland only requires miracles to be an extraordinary coincidence of a beneficial nature interpreted religiously. The emphasis on interpretation also removes the difficulties associated with determining the cause of the miracle while still encompassing Biblical miracles. However it would likely be criticised for being too subjective given that different people would differ on whether the same event is miraculous. Additionally the Catholic church which usually requires a person to have performed at least two miracles in order to be Canonized as a saint would likely not accept miracles as defined by Holland as they only accept events without naturalistic explanation suggesting the definition is inadequate for how the term miracle is used by some Christian denominations. In conclusion, it seems probable that no definition of miracles is adequate given that although Swinburne and Mackie’s definition of miracles may encompass many of the instances of how miracles are used, they are undermined by the difficulty in determining natural laws and also whether God physically intervened. Likewise while Holland goes some way to avoiding these contradictions in his definition it remains highly subjective and also doesn’t reflect how miracles are used in Christianity. Additionally it will likely also lead to significant differences between what people consider miracles. Moreover, the existence of so many contrasting definitions of miracles suggests that there isn’t a single definition that is adequate given that there is no consensus on what makes an event miraculous so any definition will be subject to significant disagreement. For this reason the statement that no definition of miracle is adequate can be considered to be true.

There, Their, and Theyre How to Choose the Right Word

The English language features a variety of homophones—words that sound alike but have different meanings. Some of the most commonly confused are there, their, and theyre, three words with the same pronunciation and similar spellings. How to Use There There is a pronoun thats often used to start a sentence and also an adverb meaning at that place. As a pronoun, there is a syntactic expletive thats typically used to introduce a noun or a clause: There is a house on the hill.There is something I need to talk to you about. There is also used as an adverb  in reference to locations. It means the opposite of the word here: I need to find out whats going on over there.She loved France and often thought about taking another trip there. Both usages of the word may sometimes be found in the same sentence: There are two boys hiding over there. How to Use Their Their is the possessive pronoun form of they. It is used to indicate that something belongs to a plural subject: Their hands are in their pockets.The kids were eager to finish playing their game. How to Use Theyre Theyre is a contraction of they are. It is no different from other contractions such as youre (you are) or cant (cannot). Theyre is found in many informal contexts in which you could also write they are: Alligators are dangerous, but theyre also lazy.Theyre looking for a way to fix the problem. Examples Although theyre spelled similarly, there, their, and theyre have very different meanings. Once you grasp them, its easy to use each word correctly. There refers to place: If youre talking about where someone or something is located, use the word there. For example:  Jimmys keys are not here; he must have left them back there at the office. There can also be used to introduce a new subject. For example: There are many excellent recipes in the cookbook.Their refers to possession: If youre talking about something that belongs to someone or something else, use the word their. For example: The ducks are very loud today; their honking can be heard for miles around.Theyre is a contraction: As a shortened version of they are, theyre may be used in any context where you could substitute they are. For example: The children are unhappy because theyre not allowed to watch any TV tonight. How to Remember the Differences There are a few memory tricks to help you remember the differences between there, their, and theyre. The first is that only one of these words is a contraction: theyre. If youve used theyre in a sentence, ask yourself if you could replace it with the words they are. If you cant, youve made a mistake and you need to use there or their instead. There contains the word here, a reminder that there refers to place. Their, on the other hand, contains the word heir, a reminder that this word refers to possession. Sources Barrett, Grant.  Perfect English Grammar: The Indispensable Guide to Excellent Writing and Speaking. Zephyros Press, 2016.Straus, Jane.  The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation: The Mysteries of Grammar and Punctuation Revealed. Jane Straus, 2006.