Writing assignment (critical) 10-12 pt. double spaced 3-5 pages. Defend a thesis and proceed according to the following format: Thesis, Arument, Objective(S), Response (S), Conclusion.
Clifford's evidentialist argument from module 2 and then contrast Clifford's position with one of the non evidentialist positions encountered Module 6. Deciding which position, evidentialism or nonevidentialism, more closely aligns with your own point of view and argue for that position.
Citations and any additional sources must be properly cited using MLA format.
Clifford's Evidentialist Argument in Contrast to Pascal's Non Evidentialist Position
To have sufficient evidence or to have good faith. Clifford argued that in order to believe in the existence of God you must have sufficient evidence to back it up such as seeing him or encountering something that involved him actually being here. With Pascal’s argument, one does not need sufficient evidence. He went off of the faith or passion for it. After analyzing both arguments it is clear that Pascal's point of view on not having sufficient evidence but having good faith suites my actual beliefs more so than Clifford’s. because I have seen someone choose their religious belief solely off of what their parents said they should believe in, second I agree with the knowing that numbers are to be infinite. We all know that numbers can go on forever. I believe that you do not have to see God to know that he exists you have to feel it in your heart.
William Clifford (1845-1879) was known as a British philosopher and mathematician. Clifford argued that there is a ethics to believe that makes it always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. Pragmatic justifications, which must always be based on evidence (498). Clifford questioned how a belief can be held and defended. Clifford stated that it was quite senseless to choose what to believe in without any form of formulation or guide leading to that belief. I believe that simply stating God is the only self-existent being calls for more proof, which Clark was able to explain but not fully prove. He held a strong belief in good morals, and that you shouldn’t believe in anything without strong evidence. As stated in the text the question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him (499). Ending, Clifford wanted anyone reading about him to know that there cannot be any belief without sufficient evidence.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a renown...