Philosophy Final Paper Final Nato

PHILOSOPHICAL
CONTRADICTIONS
(from the Philosophy of Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz)
Introduction to the Philosophy of a Human Person

12 – STEM C
Submitted by:
Alyssa M. Rodriguez Fremicko Lim
Gabrielle Borja John Paul Embalsado
Kristine Empaynado Louis Andrei Delos Reyes
Erica Joi Lopez Paul Andrada
Justine Tan James Cabrera
Franzie Abadiano Matthew Velasco
Submitted to
Mr. Aldjay A. Magnaye
August 2019
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Philosophers’ Background
III. Philosophy
IV. Contradictions to their philosophies
V. Introductory rationale
VI. Philosophical argument
VII. Analysis
VIII. Related studies from the contradictions
IX. Synthesis
X. Conclusion
XI. Bibliography
XII. Narrative Report

CHAPTER I
Introduction
As we live in a world full of curiosity as well as unanswered questions, people began to

wonder about life, asking what it is about or why are we living. Due to this, human beings became
curious and soon seeks for the truth about the things he wants to know by any means. That was
how philosophy existed and continuously existing until today.
To start, philosophy comes from the Greek word "philosophia" which means love of
wisdom and considered as the study of knowledge and an instrument for seeking truth. From the
origin of philosophy comes also the ancient philosophers and the Medieval Philosophers we are
going to talk about are Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz.
Rene Descartes is a well-known 17th century philosopher. Most of the people knew him
for his best-known philosophical statement saying "I think, therefore I am." On the other hand,
Baruch Spinoza, a highly influential philosopher that was inspired by the ideas of another
rationalist philosopher, Rene Descartes also contributed on seeking and exposing truths using
philosophy. And lastly, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz that is also one of the great thinkers of 17th
century. He is known as the last "universal genius" that made contributions to various fields of
philosophy. The said medieval philosophers will be tackled on the following chapters.
CHAPTER II
Philosopher’s Background
Rene Descartes
Early and Later Life
 René Descartes was born in March 31, 1596 at La Haye, Touraine, France
 A french mathematician, scientist and philosopher
 Died on February 11, 1650
 Formulated the first modern version of mind-body dualism
 He has been called the Father of Modern Philosophy
 La Haye en Touraine was renamed after him to honor him.
 At the age of 8, he was sent to boarding school at Jesuit College of Henri IV in La Fleche
for 7 years by his father.
 Studied law at the University of Poitiers where he earned Baccalaureate
 He wrote “Discourse in Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking Truth in
the Sciences, published in 1637.
 Joined army for a brief time and was introduced to Isaac Beckman
 Best known for his philosophy “ I think, therefore I am” or Cogito, ergo sum”
10 Major Contributions and Accomplishments
 He wrote one of the most influential works of modern philosophy, the "Discourse
on the Method"
 His statement "I think, therefore I am" became fundamental to western philosophy
 He invented the Cartesian Coordinate System
 Father of Analytic Geometry
 He had an influential role in the development of the modern physics
 His work "Meditations on First Philosophy" had a huge impact on modern
philosophy
 First to formulate the mind-body problem in its modern form
 He played a key role in propagating the theory of foundationalism
 He is considered as the Father of Modern Western Philosophy
Baruch Spinoza
Baruch Spinoza, Latinised Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677) was a Jewish-Dutch
philosopher whose work played the key role in formation of the modern Western thought. By
rejecting the Descartes’ mind-body realism and the traditional presentation of God by the Jewish
and Christian traditions, Spinoza paved the way to modern rationalism. The importance of his
work, however, was realised only after his premature death.
Early Life
 A Jewish-Dutch philosopher
 He was born in 1632 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
 Influenced greatly by the Jewish Community in Amsterdam
 At the age of 17, he left the formal education and started to work in family business
 At the age of 20, he began to study in Latin.
Later Life
 He dedicated himself to philosophy and optics for the remaining 21 years of his life
 In 1660 or 1661, he wrote his first philosophical work titled “Short Treatise on God,
Man, and His Well-being”
 He also wrote “Principle of Cartesian Philosophy” that was published in 1663
 He also started to work on his masterpiece “The Ethics” which was published only
after his death
 He fell ill in 1776 and died at the age of 45. The cause of his death is not exactly
clear. He never married and did not have any children.
Works
 A Short Treatise on God, Man and His Well-Being (1660-1661)
 On the Improvement of the Understanding (1662)
 The Principles of Cartesian Philosophy (1663)
 Theological Political Treatise (1670)
 The Ethics (1677)
 Hebrew Grammar (1677)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (also known as von Leibniz) was a prominent German
mathematician, philosopher, physicist and statesman.. Noted for his independent invention of the
differential and integral calculus, Gottfried Leibniz remains one of the greatest and most influential
metaphysicians, thinkers and logicians in history. He also invented the Leibniz wheel and
suggested important theories about force, energy and time.
Early Life and Education:
 Was born on 1st of July 1646 in Leipzig, Saxony, Germany.

 Was a child prodigy
 He became fluent in latin and studied works of Greek scholars when he was only twelve
 At the age of 14, he entered university of Leipzig where he took philosophy,
mathematics, and law.
 He gothis degree of Doctor of Laws and gave him a professorship
 His greatest achievement was the discovery of new mathematical method called
calculus
Contributions and Achievements:
 He made important contributions to philosophy, engineering, physics, law, politics,

philology and theology.
 He discovered calculus
 He discovered binary number system and invented the first calculating machine that could
add,subtract, multiply and divide.
 He is founder of symbolic logic
Later Life and Death:

Gottfried Leibniz died in Hanover on November 14, 1716. He was 70 years old.
CHAPTER III
Philosophy
CHAPTER IV
Contradictions to their philosophies
Our group have chosen to contradict the philosophies of the 17th century philosophers which
consists of Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz. The following are the
contradictions our group have made:
Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)
" Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a
particular manner by the necessity of the divine nature"
Contradiction:
If there is no contingent being in the universe then we are all necessary being. However, we are
not necessary being for we are not the first cause that has the capability to cause something to
exist. Moreover, we are not eternal and changeless. So it is false that nothing in the universe is
contingent.
"God exists and is abstract and impersonal"
Contradiction:
God, the absolute god, is a perfect being. Therefore if God is abstract and cannot exist in reality
and only in the intellect then it is considered as a flaw. Moreover, it is contradictory to hold that
God is perfect but do not have physical existence.
Philosophy (Wilhelm Leibniz)
" Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence"
Contradiction:
If the universe has an explanation for its existence and can be rooted to necessary being that is
eternal and changeless then what will be the explanation for the existence of the universe then if
the universe itself is expanding? If it is expanding then it is not changeless and it is not eternal
for it is brought into existence at some point in the past. Therefore, it contradicts the above
philosophy.
Philosophy (Rene Descartes)
“I think therefore, I am”
Contradiction:
This statement, Descartes believes that he can doubt anything except the fact that he is thinking.
Therefore he exist at least as a thinking thing.

"Minds exist separated to our bodies"
Contradiction:
Descartes believe that our mind exist without our bodies. That the mind we have is separated to
our bodies but according to science our mind or brain is a part of our body that is located in the
upper part of our body therefore our mind and body is one.

"God"
Contradiction:
Descartes considered that a certain thing must have a cause. Same for St. Thomas Aquinas’s
argument from efficient causation. “there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and
total cause as in the effect of that cause,” which in turn implies that something cannot come from
nothing (AT VII 40: CSM II 28).
Cartesian Doubt or Skepticism
Contradiction:
Descartes’ philosophy to doubt everything for you to destroy the doubt, and that no truth
can be found
Philosophy (Gottfreid Willhelm Leibniz)
“The fact that there are contingent things can’t be explained by any contingent things.”
Contradiction:
From Gottfried’s Philosophy that Contingent things can’t be explained because of
unexpected and unexplainable things.
"Pantheism" (all is God)
Contradiction:
Spinoza’s Philosophy that all is God by means of divinity of nature that we are all
interconnected, God is Nature.
“Whenever anyone has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach
it.”
Contradiction:
His philosophy says that some people have high standards in life that they don’t want to be
offended by someone.
“Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.”
Contradiction:
Baruch Spinoza believes that is God “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe
and certainly not an individual entity or creator”.
Philosophy (Gottfried Leibniz)
“The present is bigger with the future”
Contradiction:
He said that our present is bigger with the future, I think he believe that our present are
dependent to our future.
“We cannot accept anything as being true unless we can clearly and distinctly perceive it.”
Contradiction:
Only then would be possible to construct a new insight, then it would be necessary to ensure by
constant enumeration and control that nothing was left out. We can now accept that it is true.
“God did not create the world, thus God is the world.”
Contradiction:
The world is in God. God is all and all is in God. And everything is nature; nature with
God.
“The universe is necessary; thus the universe exists.”
Contradiction:
If the universe came from nothing, it means it came from the absence of space, time,
matter and energy. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
“Except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power.”
Contradiction:
His philosophy to except our thoughts for us to understand what 1will happen. Thoughts are the
blueprint which is the reality and the world around us.

“Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses, except the intellect self.”
Contradiction:
Both body and intellectual soul is just a soul trapped in the body.
“All happiness or unhappiness solely depends upon the quality of the object to which we are
attached by love.”
Contradiction:
It depends on the person if he/she would appreciate the thing. As long he/she appreciate that
thing, he/she can be happy.
“Do not weep, nor indignant, Understand.”
Contradiction:
As a person we can feel different emotions like anger, sadness, happiness, and even
emptiness. It’s normal for us to feel certain emotions in different situations that we face, but it also
depends on us whether we choose to show it or not. Having emotions is inevitable for a normal
and healthy person but we too can control those emotions, if we’ll let it consume us or not, but as
the Philosophy states, at all cost and in every situation we must not let our emotions consume us.
Especially when it’s anger and sadness, but instead we must always choose to understand through
looking at a bigger picture and on different point of views.
“When it is not in our power to follow what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.” –
Rene Descartes
Contradiction:
The Philosophy states that if we doesn’t have the power to know the truth all we can do is
to follow the most probable situations that might happen. Therefore the philosophy states that if
we failed to follow what is true, we must follow what is most likely to happen whether it’s not
based on facts or not.
“He who does not act does not exist.”
Contradiction:
The Philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz states that someone who doesn’t act doesn’t
also exist, therefore according to Leibniz to act and to move is to prove someone or something’s
existence through its purpose and actions.
“I think, therefore I am”
Contradiction:
If we are going to question ones’ existence, why do we have to do the process of

doubting when the process of believing way easier to understand? Believing in something could
lead you to true answer of of the question.
“God is not responsible for the evil that exists in the world, should be exonerated.”
Contradiction:
If God is not responsible for the evil that exists in the world, why does the human, which
He created, do evil things? There’s no such things as evil things if human did not perform it and
there will be no human if it is not because of God.
CHAPTER V
Introductory Rationale
Initial analysis:
If there is no contingent being in the universe then we are all necessary being. However, we are
not necessary being for we are not the first cause that has the capability to cause something to
exist. Moreover, we are not eternal and changeless.
Initial analysis:
God, the absolute god, is a perfect being. Therefore if God is abstract and cannot exist in reality
and only in the intellect then it is considered as a flaw. Moreover, it is contradictory to hold that
God is perfect but do not have physical existence.
" Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence"
Initial analysis:
If the universe has an explanation for its existence and can be rooted to necessary being that is
eternal and changeless then what will be the explanation for the existence of the universe then if
the universe itself is expanding? If it is expanding then it is not changeless and it is not eternal
for it is brought into existence at some point in the past. Therefore, it contradicts the above
philosophy.
Initial analysis:
This statement, Descartes believes that he can doubt anything except the fact that he is thinking.
Therefore he exist at least as a thinking thing.
Initial analysis:
Descartes believe that our mind exist without our bodies. That the mind we have is separated to
our bodies.

"God"
Initial analysis:
Descartes considered that a certain thing must have a cause. Same for St. Thomas Aquinas’s
argument from efficient causation. “there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and
total cause as in the effect of that cause,” which in turn implies that something cannot come from
nothing (AT VII 40: CSM II 28).
Initial analysis:
Descartes’ philosophy to doubt everything for you to destroy the doubt, and that no truth
can be found
Philosophy (GottfreidLeibniz)
Initial analysis:
From Gottfried’s Philosophy that Contingent things can’t be explained because of
unexpected and unexplainable things.
Initial Analysis:
it.”
Initial Analysis:
His philosophy says that some people are high standards in life that they don’t want to be
offended by someone.
Initial Analysis: Baruch Spinoza believes that is God “the sum of the natural and physical laws
of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”.
Initial Analysis: He said that our present is bigger with the future, I think he believe that our
present are dependent to our future.

Initial analysis:
Only then would be possible to construct a new insight, then it would be necessary to
ensure by constant enumeration and control that nothing was left out. We can now accept that it
is true.
Initial analysis:
The world is in God. God is all and all is in God. And everything is nature; nature with
God.
Initial analysis:
If the universe came from nothing, it means it came from the absence of space, time,
matter and energy. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Initial Analysis:
His philosophy to except our thoughts for us to understand what 2will happen. Thoughts are the
blueprint which is the reality and the world around us.

Initial Analysis:Both body and intellectual soul is just a soul trapped in the body.
Initial Analysis: It depends on the person if he/she would appreciate the thing. As long he/she
appreciate that thing, he/she can be happy.
Initial Analysis:
As a person we can feel different emotions like anger, sadness, happiness, and even
emptiness. It’s normal for us to feel certain emotions in different situations that we face, but it also
depends on us whether we choose to show it or not. Having emotions is inevitable for a normal
and healthy person but we too can control those emotions, if we’ll let it consume us or not, but as
the Philosophy states, at all cost and in every situation we must not let our emotions consume us.
Especially when it’s anger and sadness, but instead we must always choose to understand through
looking at a bigger picture and on different point of views.
Rene Descartes
Initial Analysis:
The Philosophy states that if we doesn’t have the power to know the truth all we can do is
to follow the most probable situations that might happen. Therefore the philosophy states that if
we failed to follow what is true, we must follow what is most likely to happen whether it’s not
based on facts or not.

Initial Analysis:
The Philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz states that someone who doesn’t act doesn’t
also exist, therefore according to Leibniz to act and to move is to prove someone or something’s
existence through its purpose and actions.
“I think, therefore I am” (When you doubt, you exist.)
Initial Analysis:
If we are going to question ones’ existence, why do we have to do the process of

doubting when the process of believing way easier to understand? Believing in something could
lead you to true answer of of the question.
Initial Analysis:
If God is not responsible for the evil that exists in the world, why does the human, which
He created, do evil things? There’s no such things as evil things if human did not perform it and
there will be no human if it is not because of God.
CHAPTER VI
Philosophical Argument

Logical Arguments:
Premise 1:If there is no contingent in the universe then we are all necessary beings.
Premise 2: Necessary beings would have existed no matter what and its non-existence would
have been impossible but;
Premise 3:A man could have not existed if his parents happened not to have met. And that is a
possible circumstance.
Conclusion 1:Therefore, a man is not a necessary but rather a contingent being.
Final Conclusion:So if man is a contingent being therefore there is a contingent being in the
universe.
Logical Arguments:
Premise 1: God is a perfect being.
Premise 2:A perfect being has all perfections.
Conclusion: Hence, if God exist in thought but do not have physical or concrete existence then
he is not perfect.
And this contradicts the idea of God, the absolute God, as perfect being.
"Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence"

Logical Arguments:
Premise 1: The universe has an explanation for its existence and it based on necessary being.
Premise 2: A necessary being is eternal and unchanging.
Premise 3: But according to the Theory of Relativity made by Albert Einstein, the universe is
expanding.
Conclusion 1:If the universe is expanding then the explanation of its existence cannot be based
on the necessary being and it will led to the conclusion that the universe must have brought into
existence at some point in the past.
Conclusion 2:If the universe brought into existence at some point in the past therefore it is not
considered eternal.
Conclusion 3:If it is not considered eternal then it is not necessary being.
Final Conclusion: If the explanation of the existence of universe cannot be found in a necessary
being therefore the universe has no explanation for its existence.
According to philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Pierre Gassendi, that it is wrong to say that “I
am thinking” because he can’t prove that he is the one who thinking due the fact that the thought
he is having is coming from somewhere else. With this the only we can be certain is that there
are thoughts. However, thoughts can be an evidence that you are truly exist because the thoughts
is can be doubted.
Logical arguments:
1. According to Nietzsche its more accurate to say “there are thoughts” because the idea he
is having come from somewhere else.
2. Berkeley believes that there are only perceptions. Without a perceiver we cannot exists.
God is the ultimate perceiver that allow us to exist.
Logical arguments :
1. The damaged brain may affect the body. Example of that when you are unconscious.
2. Materialism suggest that nothing exist apart from material world i.e. physical matter
like the brain); materialist psychologists generally agree that consciousness (the
mind) is the function of the brain.
Mental processes can be identified with purely physical processes in the central
nervous system, and that human beings are just complicated physiological organisms,
no more than that.
3. Your body responds to the way you think, feel, and act. This is one type of
“mind/body connection.” When you are stressed, anxious, or upset, your body reacts
in a way that might tell you that something isn’t right. For example, you might
develop high blood pressure or a stomach ulcer after a particularly stressful event,
such as the death of a loved one.

"We have freewill, enabling us to avoid error by refusing to assent to anything doubtful"
Logical arguments :
1. We don’t know what is true in this universe. So how we can be sure that we believe is the
absolute truth. Therefore, we don’t know the errors.
2. Decartes has a concept of evil demons that deceiving us. Applying the philosophy of
Decartes, we can say that the evil demon deceiving us to doubt something.
3. Applying the philosophy of Decartes, we can doubt our freewill. Do we really have
freewill?
Therefore, we cannot be sure if doubting is also an error. It can be that the evil demon is
just deceiving us due the fact the only thing that we can be certain is we are doubting.
"We didn’t make ourselves: God made us, so he exists"

Logical arguments:
1. We have the ability to reproduce.

2. The origin of life or the Abiogenesis is a natural process where life is arisen from non-
living matter.
3. Evolution of man
“Everything is Self-evident”
Logical arguments:
1. There are things that needed to dig deeper to better understand.

2. The universe still a mystery, means that we still cannot fully understand this.
3. Everything is beyond our human understanding.
Therefore, not everything in this world can be explain immediately. We need to dig
deeper to fully understand everything.
Logical Arguments:
1. If he doubts or disbelieve about anything, how come he still believes and has a strong
relationship with God?
2. If Skepticism is to doubt everything to find true knowledge then why did he neglected
this belief
3. If no truth can't be found then how can he know that skepticism is also true.
Final Conclusion: how can you doubt in a way that you should doubt everything and with
this will let you know the truth, how will you know if it is the truth if you need to doubt it
now too.
Philosophy (Gottfreid Leibniz)

Logical Arguments:
1. If contingent things can’t be explained then what for is the law of sufficient reason
that needs explanation for you to have a reason.
2. How can contingent things exist if it can’t be explained at all.
3. How do we know God exist which is a part of contingency if contingency itself can’t
be explained.
Final Conclusion: How will it still be that his Philosophy about reason is true if Contingency
cant be explained, how will God and other contingent things can be true and its purpose.
Pantheism (all is God)
Initial Analysis:
Logical Arguments:
1. If God is Nature, how can you relate it from the bible saying “God created the
universe” and with them being interconnected.
2. God is Omnipresent and All knowing but that doesn’t mean that Nature And God is
the same thing for God Rules over the Universe or the Nature.
3. From the Ontological Argument that God is a Being. How can he be Nature or only
the Physical world .
Final Conclusion: How will God be the nature if he is the source of everything including
nature itself.

it.”
Logical Argument:
 Sometime it’s okay to be offended. Other people must know when they offend someone so
that they won’t do the same to others.
 You only get offended if you know they are right. But you will not get offended if you know
your worth and capabilities, so if someone tries to offend you and you know that it’s not
true, it will never break you.
 Sometimes, we learned things when we are offended we will learn how to keep our patience.
Final Conclusion:
 We don’t need to avoid being offended instead we should embrace it for us to know how
should we interact with people.
Logical Argument:
 It is not always the God. Other proofs or rumors about are still not enough to say that all of
this was from him. Sometimes it’s really from ourselves.
 We don’t have always depend on God.
 There’s no really strong proof that there is God to depend on him.
Final Conclusion: We don’t have to always depend on him, we have a own mind we should use
for our own.
Logical Argument:
 Present is bigger with the past, because we learn from our past it teaches us a lot of lesson
that we can carry on up to the future.
 The past has the most impact for the present and future because we will base from the past
for our better present.
 How come that we have a bigger present because of the future, it is only possible if you
already know the future.
Final Conclusion: We learn from our past because we already know what mistake we made and
that mistake will help us to make our present become bigger also same for the future.
Logical arguments:
Premise 1:We can just say that the thing is true and real with understanding and perceiving
it.
Premise 2:We also need evidence in something that exist
Premise 3:Therefore, we can only say that the thing is existing if we also have proof that it is
really existing.
Contradiction:
If God did not create the world, then who created it? God created the world and the
nature and everything that exist including everything that we see though God is the world.
Logical arguments:
Premise 1: God does exist
Premise 2:The world is existing as it is
Premise 3: Therefore, God is our world and there has a world because of God’s existence
Contradiction:
If the universe does exist then everything on it should be considered as a necessary also.
Logical arguments:
Premise 1:If one thing has an explanation, thus it is existing
Premise 2:Universe came from the absence of space, time, matter and energy; universe has
an explanation and it is necessary
Premise 3:Thus, universe is existing.
Logical Arguments
1. If we except our own thoughts, why do we need to judge people on everything we see
about them?
2. Why do people use power to take over people?
3. If we except our thoughts, why is there people who do not understand what will happen
in reality?
Final Conclusion: How can we be knowledgeable of everything if we only see things in anything
we see? We people who have knowledge must always be positive for us to be successful.
Philosophy (GottfriedLeibniz)
“Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses, except the intellect self.”.
Logical Argument:
1. How can we expect the truth using only our senses from our body?
2. If the soul controls our body, what can effect the body from the soul?
3. Would we know what is the reality using our senses?
Final Conclusion: Our mind is a blank sheet, without our senses we won’t be able to gain
knowledge about anything.
Logical Argument:
1. Will we achieve the true happiness with love?
2. How can we be sure that we do not depend on the look of a thing?
3. What is this state of mind we call happiness?
Final Conclusion: The object we love and are attached to another person and their qualities,
whether they will true or they will betray you, results to our own happiness or unhappiness.
Logical Arguments:
1. It’s the nature of a human being to feel and express their feelings, and expressing different
feelings and showing expressions are uncontrollable therefore We humans can weep and be
indignant sometimes but we can still choose whether to understand or not.
2. We people and most different creatures seems by all accounts to be outfitted in reacting in
different circumstances and situations. We call these the essential feelings: anger, fear, surprise,
disgust, joy and sadness, as depicted during the 1970s by anthropologist Paul Eckman [source:
Changing Minds].
3. Feelings emerge from the most primary piece of the brain which is called cerebrum, the limbic
system. They too are survival reactions… Things like fear, rage, panic. In present day people,
these are currently filtered through the rest of our considerably more complex mind. In any case,
they stay powerful that can undoubtedly overwhelm the “rational” parts of our brain. So surely,
it's in human instinct to have emotional responses.
Final Conclusion:
Giving ourselves time to let the emotions out through crying, shouting or even getting
mad can be also helpful for us to maintain a healthy mentality for it will not burden us anymore,
and to balance it, we must also let ourselves to understand the situation and to absorb other
different point of views for us to solve the problem and for us to fully free ourselves from the
pain that is being caused by the situation.
Rene Descartes
Logical Arguments:
1. We Should strive to know and to follow what is true and to speak in full truthfulness at all
time and at all cost and we human will always seek for the truth for a certain satisfactions and to
answer certain questions in our minds and even our hearts.
2. it’s a nature of a human to be curious in knowing the truth that's why we find ways and
answers to know the absolute truth.
3. Knowing the absolute truth will also help us to behave rationally.
Final Conclusion:
Following what is more convenient is easy but knowing, following and living the truth
will always help us to be on the right and good way in life. That’s why we should always strive
to know the absolute truth at all cost but then sometimes some choose to go with the flow of life.
Logical Arguments:
1. Based on the Philosophy of Rene Descartes “I think therefore I am” we can also prove that we
exist; as we can state: “If we think that we exist then we really exist” therefore even if we refuse
to act, we still exist. As we doubt our existence that proves that we’re thinking therefore we
exist.
2.According to Science the characteristics of a living organism are

Growth,Respiration,Excretion,Nutrients, and Reproduction; and a human being has these
characteristics therefore they are considered as a living organism, that also proves that a human
itself even if it's not moving it does exist.
3.Scientifically and Logically Speaking majority of plants does not move on its own but there are
many scientific evidences that plants exist,from its cell organelles to its structure, therefore even
though plants doesn't move or act it still exist.
Final Conclusion:
Even though an organism doesn’t move there are many scientific evidences that proves
its existence for example are plants and even humans, but then the philosophy of Leibniz also
have a point since if we died we cannot prove our existence if we didn’t do something good that
other people can remember.
When you doubt, you exist.
Premise #1:I did not doubt. Instead, I believe.
Premise #2:When someone believes in something, that someone is also thinking that something
could be true.
Premise #3:That someone could be me. That something could be my existence.
Conclusion #1:I believe that I exist.
Final Conclusion: Therefore, I don’t need to doubt just prove that I exist.”
God is not responsible for the evil that exists in the world, should be exonerated.
Premise #1:Human do evil things.
Premise #2:If human do evil things, human is already considered as evil.
Conclusion #1:God created Human which is also considered as evil.
Final Conclusion: Therefore, God is responsible for evil that exist in this world and should not
be exonerated.
CHAPTER VII
Analysis
If there is no contingent so if a man is

in the universe then we contingent being
are all necessary beings therefore there is a
contingent being in the
"Nothing in this universe

is contingent, but all
things are conditioned to
necessary beings would exist and operate in a therefore a man is
have existed no matter particular manner by the not a necessary but
what and its non- necessity of the divine rather a contingent
existence would have nature" being
been impossible but;
a man could have not

existed if his parents
happened not to have
met
Explanation:
This graphic organizer shows the step-by-step process of contradicting Spinoza's

philosophy that tells "Nothing in this universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist
and operate in a particular manner by the necessity of the divine nature". This organizer starts from
the idea of contingent and necessary being, and it tells that if there is no contingent being in the
universe then we, humans, are all necessary beings for we exists. With the definition of necessary
being, they would have existed no matter what. In the other hand, a man could have not existed if
his parents happened not to have met and this is a huge probability. Furthermore, if man is not
necessary but rather a contingent being then there is a contingent being existing in the universe.
To summarize, this finally led to the logical arguments that contradicts the philosophy of Spinoza
that nothing in this universe is contingent.
God is a perfect being and being perfect comes with eternality and stableness.
A perfect being has all perfections and one of that is to do anything and everything.
Hence, if God exists in thought but do not have an intangible or physical existence then he
has a flaw.
If he has a flaw then he is not perfect. This simply contradicts the idea of absolute God as
perfect being.
Explanation:
This table matrix shows the strategic explanation of the contradiction for Baruch Spinoza's
philosophy. Spinoza's philosophy tells that "God exists and is abstract and impersonal". This table
starts with the premise that God is a perfect being. If God is a perfect being then he is eternal and
unchanging. Furthermore, a perfect being has all perfections and one of that is to do anything and
everything. And with the philosophy of Spinoza, he told that God is abstract and impersonal so
God exists in thought. Hence, if God exists in thought but do not have a physical form or existence
then he has a flaw. If he has a flaw then he is not perfect. To summarize, this simply contradicts
the philosophy of Spinoza saying that "God exists and is abstract and impersonal".
The universe has an explanation for its existence and it is based on a necessary being, which is
God, the absolute God.
A necessary being is eternal and unchanging. This means that God has no end nor beginning as
well as God is stable or consistent.
But according to Albert Einstein with his Theory of Relativity, the universe is expanding that
simply implies its inconsistency.
So, if the universe is expanding then the explanation of its existence cannot be based on the
necessary being for it is inconsistent. If it is expanding then it will led us to the conclusion or idea
that the universe must have brought into existence at some point in the past; started being a small
point then continuously expands up until now.
If the universe brought into existence at some point in the past then it is not considered eternal.
If it is not eternal then it is not necessary being. (if we go back to the definition of God as eternal)
If it is not necessary being then the explanation of the universe's existence cannot be based in it.
If it cannot be based on necessary being then the universe's existence does not have explanation.
Explanation:
This table matrix shows the step-by-step analyzation of the contradiction for Wilhelm
Leibniz' philosophy that says "Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence". This table
starts from the premise that the universe has an explanation for its existence and it lies on a
necessary being. A necessary being is something or someone who is eternal and unchanging that
basically implies that this necessary being has no end nor beginning and is stable. However, from
the Theory of Relativity made by Albert Einstein, he said that the universe itself is expanding and
this was also studied by Edwin Hubble, an american astronomer. Hence, if the universe is
continuously expanding then the explanation of its existence cannot be based on necessary being
for its inconsistency. And another, if the universe is expanding then it will led us to the idea that
the universe started from a single point at some time in the past. And if it started some time from
the past then it is not considered eternal for it has a beginning and being eternal means having no
beginning nor end. And if its not eternal then it is not a necessary being.And if it is not a necessary
being then the explanation of the universe's existence cannot be rooted on it. And if it cannot be
based on necessary being then the universe's existence still does not have explanation. To
summarize,this contradicts and oppose Leibniz' philosophy "Anything that exists has an
explanation for its existence".
I think, therefore I am COGITO ERGO SUM
According to Nietzsche its more accurate to say

Contradiction #1 “there are thoughts” because the idea he is
having come from somewhere else.
Berkeley believes that there are only

Contraction #2 perceptions. Without a perceiver we cannot
exists. God is the ultimate perceiver that allow
us to exist.
COGITO ERGO SUM
The most famous line of Rene Decartes is “I think, Therefore I am” is about his existence. The
idea in this is he was certain that he exist because he cannot doubt that he was doubting. He
concluded that he really existed at least as a thinking being. But the statement has its problem. The
word “I think” is highly debatable in the social media. According to Neitzschethe word “There are
thoughts” is more accurate to say because the idea is come from somewhere else. In Berkeley
philosophy, there are only perceptions. In Decartes “I think, Therefore I am” we exist and our
mind alone is the evidence. Going back to Berkeley he believes that the perception the only thing
that make us existing. If someone stop to thinking about you, then you will be gone. However God
is the ultimate perceiver, allowing us to exist because of his perception to us.
Everything is Self-evident Human Knowledge Questions
the condition that distinguishes How life started?

LIFE animals and plants from Who create life?
inorganic matter, including the What our purposes?
capacity for growth,
reproduction, functional activity,
and continual change preceding
death.
The creator, the supreme being What is the image of God?
GOD The giver of life, sustainer of the Is there a God?
universe. Why can’t we see him?
How is he supreme than us?
EVERYTHING IS SELF-EVIDENT
The statement “Everything is Self-Evident” can be true. However the only thing that make that true is our
mind. You can’t understand everything, you’re not God. Not everything is self explanatory. There is some
things that we can’t understand and explain by ourselves. There are studies that we need to conduct to fully
understand one thing. But it take a lifetime. Many people contributed a discovery to understand how one
things work. However, we are still in the peak of everything. There discoveries are just a headstart for us
to understand everything. Example of that is the Graphic organizer. In that we input a topic that at first we
can explain but still we can’t understand it. We are still throwing questions with that simple topic. With
that the statement “Everything is self-evident” can be wrong.
If he doubts about If truth can’t be found,

anything, how can he still then how can we know if
have a strong relationship his idea Skepticism is true
with God. too.
CARTESIAN DOUBT
OR
SKEPTICISM
Whatever is, is and you

cannot easily doubt
anything that is already
absolute.
Explanation:
This Graphic organizer displays the main contradictions of the philosophy of Rene
Descartes “Cartesian Doubt”, explaining that it is natural doubt in different things we don’t
know, but doubting everything that you see and encounter is totally different. How can he
Doubt everything and still has a strong relationship with God. And from the principle of
identity explaining that what is, is and that it is absolute. how will you doubt something
incomparable and not relative in other things, simply absolute. therefore, this are the
argument that contradicts the Philosophy of Rene Descartes.
“The fact that

there are
contingent things
can’t be explained
by any contingent
things.”
If he doesn’t have an From the ontological

explanation about argument that God
contingency then what for Exist through reason
is his Principle of mean contingency
sufficient reason. may be explained.
How can he know the
existence of God if he
can’t explain
contingency.
Explanation:
The graphic organizer displays the Contradiction from the quote of Gottfried Leibniz
“The fact that there are contingent things can’t be explained by any contingent things.” From
the cosmological argument explaining that contingent things have no explanation. Then how
did he formed his explanation about God if Contingent things can’t be explained. His principle
of sufficient rule also contradicts this quote because how will he explain God. Therefore, this
are the argument that contradicts Gottfried Leibniz’s Philosophy.
Philosophy Baruch Spinoza)
How will God be Nature if he is

the one who created it.
There are many scientifical

GOD IS NATURE theories about where the universe
originated but never with God
being interconnected to Nature.
God is a being and not a physical

world
Explanation:
This graphic organizer displays the different Contradictions about Spinoza’s

philosophy “God is Nature”. From the argument according to bible about the Creation and how
God Created the world, meaning that God and Nature is different. There are different theories of
Science on how the universe originated but never of How God is Interconnected with Nature, for
God is a being and not a physical world. Therefore this are the arguments that Contradicts the
Philosophy that God and nature is the same.
it’s okay to be
offended. Other
people must know
when they offend
someone so that
they won’t do the
same to others.
“Whenever
anyone has
offended me, I try
to raise my soul so
high that the
offense cannot
reach it.” You only get
we learned things offended if you
when we are know they are right.
offended we will But you will not get
learn how to keep offended if you
our patience. know your worth
and capabilities.
Explanation:
This graphic organizer show how I contradicted the philosophy of Rene Descartes. Being
offended is not that bad but it depends on peoples’ perception, for me being offended is not that
bad actually we really learn from that feeling because we will know what our limits and how
should we make relationship with other people. We will know how to interact and adjust for those
people who don’t how to interact. And being offended will show to other how should they also
interact with other, they will know if they are offending someone.
Sometimes it’s
really from
ourselves.
“Whatsoever is,
is in God, and
without God
nothing can be,
or be
There’s no really conceived.”
strong proof We don’t have
that there is God always depend
to depend on on God.
him.
Explanation:
This shows my contradiction to Baruch Spinoza, there still no strong proof or scientific evidence
that God is existing. Maybe because of our faith that’s why we believe that God is existing but in
terms of science there is no evidence of God presence.
Philosophy
Present is bigger with

the past, because we
learn from our past it
teaches us a lot of
lesson that we can
carry on up to the
future.
The
present is
bigger with
How come that we
the future. The past has the most
have a bigger present impact for the
because of the future, present and future
it is only possible if because we will base
you already know the from the past for our
future. better present.
Explanation:
This graph shows that we can have a bigger present because of our past not of our future
because we learn in the past, our mistakes in past help us to grow in our present. We cannot grow
because of future unless if you already seen it.
Mind exist separated to the body

The diagram show what is the relationship of mind and body. First , we separate the mind
and body and we input the function of them alone. ThereforeDecartes said that the mind is
separated element to the body. However this two are totally connected to each other. The mind
can’t be exist without the body or vice versa. This philosophy has many contradiction and one of
that is when a body take a damage, the mind is also affected.
Explanation:
We have freewill, enabling us to avoid error by refusing to assent to anything doubtful
Do we know what is the errors in life? How to avoid it? What’s the thing make us capable
of avoiding those errors. Decartes suggested that the freewill we have is the thing that make us to
avoid errors in life like if the doctor tells you that hamburger is bad for you but it your choice if
you’re going to follow what the doctor told. But what if you don’t know the real errors? To
Decartes , to avoid those errors he started to doubt everything. But he doesn’t sure what things to
avoid. This statement has flaws. Therefore even we have freewill to avoid errors , we don’t know
what’s to avoid.
Explanation:
“We didn’t create ourselves: God created us, so he exist”
There are evidences and theories how the life originated. The claim of We didn’t make ourselves
is absurdly wrong due the fact that almost all organisms in Earth can reproduce from bacteria to human.
There also a study and theory of life come from nothing. In Abiogenesis theory, where a life come from
non living matter. Therefore the statement “We didn’t make ourselves” countered by human reproduction.
Senses are source of

our knowledge so
that we can't say
that we exist if we
don't use are senses
Because senses send

Doubting is not valid
information to the
reason to tell that
brain to help us
you are existing, you
understand and
need to use your
perceive the world
senses to prove it
around us.
Explanation:
This graphic organizer shows the step by step process contradicting Rene Descartes
philosophy that tells “l think therefore I exist”. This organizer prove that doubting is not valid to
tell that we are existing, we need to use our senses to prove that we are truly existing. Senses is
important because senses send information to our brain to help us to understand and to perceive
the world around us and also senses is the source of our knowledge so that we can’t say that we
exist if we don’t used our senses therefore, Descartes philosophy is not true because thinking is
not a valid reason to say that we people is existing we need to used our senses to truly say that we
are existing.
"The more you struggle to live, the less you live."
Struggles makes us stronger so that if

we pass that we can live longer.
If we do not struggle in life we

couldn't find out the true values of
ourselves.
Living in this world is not easy you

need to be strong and struggling
makes us stronger.
Explanation:
This graphic organizer shows the step by step process of contradicting Baruch Spinoza ‘s
philosophy that tells “the more you struggle to live,the less you live” . This organizer prove that
struggle is not the reason to lessen the way we live because struggle makes us stronger and if we
pass that struggle we can live longer and if we do not struggle in life we couldn’t find out the true
value of us and also living in this world is that easy we to be brave and strong and struggle makes
us more stronger therefore the philosophy of Spinoza is not true because struggle are not barriers
to live our lives longer.
"Who does not act does not exist"
God is unmoved mover
You don't have to move to say that you're existing.
As long as you live you are existing
Explanation:
This graphic organizer shows the step by step process of contradicting Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz philosophy that tells “who does not act does not exist”. This organizer prove that even if
I do not act I’m still existing because god is a unmoved mover even though we cannot see that
god’s act still we can say that god exist and you don’t have to move to prove or to say that you
are existing as long as you are here in the earth you are existing therefore Leibniz philosophy is
not true because acting does that mean that you are existing.

Explanation:
The graphic organizer represents the main contradiction of Gottfried Leibniz’ philosophy,
“Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses, except the intellect self.”However, if we
do expect the truth with the use of our senses, would it be true? If the soul take control with our
body, will it have an effect in the body from the soul? Would we really know what will be our
future with our senses? So in conclusion, Our mind is a blank sheet, without our senses we won’t
be able to gain knowledge about anything.
Explanation:
The graphic organizer shows the contradictions of Baruch Spinoza “All happiness or
unhappiness solely depends upon the quality of the object to which we are attached by love.” On
the other hand, is happiness can only be achieved through love? Are we unhappy if we don’t love?
How can we be sure that we don’t always depend on the physical aspects of an object or a human?
Do we really appreciate an object’s quality on the inside? Lastly, what is happiness? Can you be
happy on your own or by loving other person? In conclusion, The object we love and are attached
to another person and their qualities, whether they will true or they will betray you, results to our
own happiness or unhappiness.

Explanation:
The graphic organizer represents the main contradiction of Rene Descartes’ philosophy,
“Except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power.”. However, if we do except
our own thoughts, why do we still judge other people’s perception towards things. Also, what is it
with power that drives humans to terrorize and colonize other countries. Lastly, if we do except
our own thoughts, why are we still clueless about the things happening around us? In summary,
How can we be knowledgeable of everything if we only see things in anything we see? We people
who have knowledge must always be positive for us to be successful.
It's a nature of
a human being
to feel
emotions like
sadness, anger,
and happiness.
"Don't weep nor

indignant,
Understand."
The Cerebrum We people

is the part of have different
the brain that way on how to
is responsible react and feel
in the different in different
feelings of a circumstances
human in life.
Explanation:
The diagram displays one of the Philosophy of Baruch Spinoza who is a Jewish-Dutch
Philosopher, His thinking combines a commitment to a wide variety of Cartesian metaphysical
and epistemological ideas with factors from ancient Stoicism, Hobbes, and medieval Jewish
rationalism into a then again extraordinarily original system. His extremely naturalistic views on
God, the world, the human being and knowledge serve to floor an ethical philosophy
headquartered on the control of the passions leading to advantage and happiness. Therefore here
are the contradictions that I came up with the said philosophy.

We must
always strive
to know the
truth.
"If it is not in our

power to follow
what is true, we
ought to follow
what is most
probable."
The truth will It is a nature
help us to of a human to
behave be curious on
rationally. what is true.
Explanation:
The diagram shows one of the philosophy of Rene Descartes. To start with, Descartes
imagined that the Scholastics' strategy was inclined to uncertainty or doubting given their
dependence on sensation as the source for all informations. He even attempted to recognize the
past issue through his so called method of doubt. His basic approach was to consider false in any
belief that serves prey to even the simplest doubt. The said "Hyperbolic doubt" then became a way
for what Rene Descartes consider to be an impartial search for the truth. Therefore here are the
contradictions that I came up with the said philosophy.

The philosophy of
Descartes "the
method of doubt"
"He who
does not
act, does
not exist." According to Science
any organism that
passes the
Scientifically and
charactersitics of
Logically speaking
MRS.GREN proves
plants exist.
that they are a living
organism that also
proves that they exist.
Explanation:
The diagram displays the philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz who is

additionally one of the great masterminds of the seventeenth century. He is perceived as the end.
His research led him to situate the soul in a point this was once new development towards the
monad and to enhance the precept of sufficient purpose (nothing happens besides a reason). His
meditations on the tough idea of the factor have been related to troubles encountered in optics,
space, and movement; they have been posted in 1671 under the generic title Hypothesis “New
Physical Hypothesis”. He asserted that movement depends, as in the concept of the German
astronomer Johannes Kepler, on the motion of a spirit (God). While the contradictions I came up
through the help of Science and Logic.
"I think,therefore I exist"

Philosophy (Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz)
CHAPTER VIII
Related studies from the contradictions
Supporting Informations:
Contingent and Necessary Beings
1. Anything that exists is either contingent (depends on something else for its existence) or
necessary (does not depend on something else for its existence).
2. Some contingent things exist (like plants, planets, animals, and people).
3. The existence of these contingent things cannot ultimately be explained by other contingent
things, since they also depend on something else for their existence.
4. Therefore the existence of contingent things can only be ultimately explained by something
that exists necessarily, something that does not depend on something else for its existence but
rather inherently possesses existence.
1. necessary is eternal.
2. necessary must be immaterial.
1. Saint Anselm's philosophy about God
Anselm’s later work, the Proslogion (1077/78; “Allocution” or “Address”), contains his
most famous proof of the existence of God. This begins with a datum of faith: humans believe
God to be the being than which none greater can be conceived. Some, like the fool in the Psalms,
say there is no God; but even the fool, on hearing these words, understands them, and what he
understands exists in his intellect, even though he does not grant that such a being exists in
reality. But it is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than to exist in the
understanding alone. Therefore it is contradictory to hold that God exists only in the intellect, for
then the being than which none greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be
conceived—namely, one that exists both in reality and in the understanding. Philosophers still
debate the meaning and value of this so-called ontological argument for God’s existence.
2. Bible verse (Religion; according to Bible)
Matthew 5:48
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect"
1. Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is one of the towering achievements of 20th-
century physics. Published in 1916, it explains that what we perceive as the force of gravity in
fact arises from the curvature of space and time.
Einstein proposed that objects such as the sun and the Earth change this geometry. In the
presence of matter and energy it can evolve, stretch and warp, forming ridges, mountains and
valleys that cause bodies moving through it to zigzag and curve. So although Earth appears to be
pulled towards the sun by gravity, there is no such force. It is simply the geometry of space-time
around the sun telling Earth how to move.
The general theory of relativity has far-reaching consequences. It not only explains the
motion of the planets; it can also describe the history and expansion of the universe, the physics
of black holes and the bending of light from distant stars and galaxies.
2. The Discovery of the Expanding Universe

Meanwhile, other physicists and mathematicians working on Einstein's theory of gravity
discovered the equations had some solutions that described an expanding universe. In these
solutions, the light coming from distant objects would be redshifted as it traveled through the
expanding universe. The redshift would increase with increasing distance to the object.
In 1929 Edwin Hubble, working at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California,

measured the redshifts of a number of distant galaxies. He also measured their relative distances
by measuring the apparent brightness of a class of variable stars called Cepheids in each galaxy.
When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies
increased as a linear function of their distance. The only explanation for this observation is that
the universe was expanding.
Once scientists understood that the universe was expanding, they immediately realized that
it would have been smaller in the past. At some point in the past, the entire universe would have
been a single point. This point, later called the big bang, was the beginning of the universe as we
understand it today.
The expanding universe is finite in both time and space. The reason that the universe did
not collapse, as Newton's and Einstein's equations said it might, is that it had been expanding from
the moment of its creation. The universe is in a constant state of change. The expanding universe,
a new idea based on modern physics, laid to rest the paradoxes that troubled astronomers from
ancient times until the early 20th Century.
3. The Big Bang theory
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its
simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the
next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
Because current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth,
much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical formulas and
models. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon
known as the cosmic microwave background.
4. NASA’s Hubble Finds Universe Is Expanding Faster Than Expected ( News)

Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the universe is
expanding 5 percent to 9 percent faster than expected.
“This surprising finding may be an important clue to understanding those mysterious parts
of the universe that make up 95 percent of everything and don’t emit light, such as dark energy,
dark matter and dark radiation,” said study leader and Nobel Laureate Adam Riess of the Space
Telescope Science Institute and Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, Maryland."
5. Cosmic Inflation
In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a
theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from
10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10−33 and
10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to
expand, but at a less rapid rate.
Supporting informations:
"Cartesian Doubt or Skepticism"

1. Principle of Identity
From its meaning that whatever is, is. That it is an absolute, how come you should doubt
everything even if the certain thing is already absolute and cannot be changed.
2. God
James 1:5-6
If any of you lack wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without
finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not
doubt, because the one who doubt is like a wave of the sea blown and tossed by the wind.
3. Cogito ergo Sum

After his philosophy about the Cartesian doubt which is to doubt everything, he then
Created the famous Quote “Cogito Ergo Sum” which is just contradicting his first
philosophy that he can’t doubt himself.
4. His Relationship with God

He claims that mind cannot help but believe that God is true, but how can he doubt
everything if something is absolute in your mind like God and cannot be doubt with a
good reason.
5. Principle of Non-Contradiction
From the principle that it is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at
the same time, if you are to doubt something. Example a pencil, it will never be same as a
ballpen for it is impossible for it to be a pencil and ballpen at the same time.
Philosophy (GottfreidWillhelm Leibniz)

1. Principle of Sufficient Reason

From his philosophy that any fact or thing should have a proof for its existence, what is
this philosophy is for if Contingency for him can’t be explained.
2. Mark 4:22
"For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it would
come to light.
3. Ontological Argument
This argument explaining that God Exists through reason, but still Gottfried believe that
Contingent things can’t be explained.
4. Platonism and Theism

Another argument explaining that God truly exists and the source of all realities, abstract
objects etc.
1. Bible (The Creation)

From the Beginning of bible where it is written that “in the beginning, God created the
Heaven and Earth”. How did God became nature if he is the source or the creator of it.
2. 1 John 2:15
“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the
father is not in them.” The verse is telling us that we shouldn’t love the World and only
God. Which means that God and nature is not interconnected or related in each other.
3. Ontological Argument
St. Anselm Explained that God is a being that cannot be Conceived. When we say nature,
it is the physical world or everything we see in our world. Nature and being is different
from each other which contradicts “God is Nature”
4. Science
Science has many different theories about the Universe and how it Originated. From the
Big Bang Theory, Modern Nebular theory, and many other theories but there hasn’t been
a theory about God being the nature, there is no proper evidence for it.
5. Difference of Omniscient and Omnipresent to Universe

It is stated that God is all knowing and present everywhere. While the universe is the whole
of all matter where planets, galaxies etc can be seen. God and nature can’t be same for the
universe is where God rules over, he is all knowing and present in universe. Without
universe, where will God rule over.
Philosophy (RENE DESCARTES)
it.”
1. Most people view being offended as a bad thing. Why would you want to hear something
that upsets you, something that calls into question some of your beliefs? The problem that arises
as a result of this kind of thinking is that you only surround yourself with people that share the
same opinions as you. If you don't open yourself up to people that have other views, you have shut
yourself off from the opportunity to learn more about the world around you. Get a debate started,
learn more about something you're passionate about by hearing what people from the opposing
side have to say. Hearing what they have to say doesn't have to change your mind, but it can make
you more tolerant of their beliefs and allow you to learn more about the topic as a whole.
In conclusion, I believe that being offended can help you realize what is important in your
life and possibly open you up to debates that can help you learn more about the world around you.
This isn't to say that you should be offended by everything. In fact, in some ways we are a
hypersensitive generation and seem to be vexed by everything. However, I believe that if you do
become offended you should allow your reaction to help benefit you and allow it to be a good
thing, not a bad thing.(Ganley,2016)
2. Let’s face it, offense happens. It’s natural and normal. The problem is that it’s been
weaponized/commoditized. The right thinks that they need to offend the left and thinks that bumper
stickers and YouTube videos will somehow achieve it. The left thinks that offense is something to
collect and moral outrage is necessary to achieve the goals of social justice. (These generalizations
are just for point of discussion, don’t get offended.) In a way, the culture war is simply the exchange
of this precious resource, offense.
If we legitimized the state of being offended and stopped engaging in these rituals meant to
hide or deflect our offense, we might find a path toward a less divided society. We might be better
equipped to understand each other’s positions and be willing to look at and remove the offensive
things and behaviors themselves, rather than focusing on or trying to engineer offense in others.
(Wayne, 2018)
Philosophy (BARUCH SPINOZA)
1. OMNISCIENCE
Now let’s consider God’s omniscience. God knows all truths and accepts nothing false as
true. But could an all-good God know what it is like to sin? Yes, for God knows all truths; but he
doesn’t know all truths directly from personal experience. God knows what it is like to sin by
knowing what it is like for us to sin.
Now, if God is all-knowing—if he knows everything every person will ever do—what does that
mean for our free will? Is such causal liberty an illusion? Not at all. I can know my influenza-
stricken, gagging child is about to vomit without causing her to vomit. Foreknowledge does not
equal causality.
2. OMNIPOTENCE
This brings us to the claim of God’s omnipotence. Is there any philosophical contradiction
that can be drawn out of God’s infinite power? As we have noted, God cannot sin because he is
morally perfect, the perfect standard of what it means to be good. Thus God has the power to do
all logically possible things—that is, he has the power to do all meaningful things. That is why he
cannot create a four-sided triangle (which is really nothing at all).
Nor can God create a rock that is too heavy for his all-powerful self to lift. Such a notion is
meaningless, because it fails to acknowledge how God really is. A bachelor cannot forget his
wife’s birthday because he is a bachelor; God cannot be overpowered by any creature because he
is omnipotent.
3. OMNIPRESENCE
Finally, what about God’s omnipresence? How can this be so? Well, as long as God is
unbound by time and space there is no contradiction. Not only has God created all things, but
also his presence is necessary to sustain them in being, just as the presence of hydrogen atoms is
necessary to sustain water in being. God is present to all beings, but he is not all beings (that’s
pantheism). He is present to all things, and the existence of all things is dependent on his presence,
just as the caller of a square dance is present to the dancers on the floor and the existence of the
square dance depends on the mind (and voice) of the caller.
Thus God, who contains all perfections within himself, can rightly be referred to as all-powerful,
all-good, all-knowing, etc. We cannot say (by the way) that God is a “pre-eminently peerless
stinker”—contrary to the charge of Dr. Dawkins—because stinkiness is a privation of a good; but
God is perfectly good. Such an assertion of God’s infinite stinkiness is an amusing bit of rhetoric,
but it does not in the least follow logically from the given philosophical definition of God. It
betrays Dawkins’ misunderstanding of who God is.
It suffices to say that philosophical proofs for or against God’s existence will not be sufficiently
worked out without rigorous intellectual groundwork. Indeed, the finite limits of human reason
that force us into analogies and negative statements about God can sometimes lead to frustration
and headaches. But I side with G.K. Chesterton, who acknowledged “the riddles of God are more
satisfying than the solutions of man.” (Nelson,2019)
Philosophy (Rene Descartes )
1. Descartes believed that philosophy should go from the simple to the complex. Only then
would it be possible to construct a new insight.
2. And finally it would be necessary to ensure by constant enumeration and control that
nothing was left out. Then, a philosophical conclusion would be within reach.
3. Descartes tried to work forward from this zero point. He doubted everything, and that
was the only thing he was certain of. But now something struck him: one thing had to be
true, and that was that he doubted. When he doubted, he had to be thinking, and because
he was thinking, it had to be certain that he was a thinking being.
4. God without existence is contained in the essence as unintelligible, meaning that
existence is contained in the essence of an infinite substance.
5. Because of this, God must exist in his very own nature. God without existence can be
compared to a mountain without valley. It is unintelligible.
God is the world
1. Spinoza didn’t only say that everything is nature. He identified nature with God.
He said God is all, and all is in God—Pantheism
2. To Spinoza, God did not create the world in order to stand outside it.
God is the world. Sometimes Spinoza expresses it differently. He maintains that the
world is in God.
 He wanted his ethics to show that human life is subject to the universal laws of nature. We
must therefore free ourselves from our feelings and our passions. Only then will we find
contentment and be happy, he believed.
3. He believed that there was only one substance. Everything that exists can be reduced to
one single reality which he simply called Substance. At times he calls it God or nature
But when Spinoza uses the word ‘nature,’ he doesn’t only mean extended nature. By
Substance, God, or nature, he means everything that exists, including all things spiritual.
4. According to Spinoza, we humans recognize two of God’s qualities or manifestations.

Spinoza called these qualities God’s attributes.
 These two attributes are identical with Descartes’s ‘thought’ and ‘extension.’ God—
or nature—manifests itself either as thought or as extension.
5. Everything in nature, then, is either thought or extension. The various phenomena we

come across in everyday life. Spinoza maintained that all material things and things that
happen around us are an expression of God or nature. So it follows that all thoughts that
we think are also God’s or nature’s thoughts. For everything is one. There is only one
God, one nature, or one Substance.
Spinoza believed that God—or the laws of nature—is the inner cause of everything that
happens. He is not an outer cause, since God speaks through the laws of nature and only
through them.
The universe is existing
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its
own nature or in an external explanation.
2. The universe has an explanation for its existence, and that explanation is grounded in
a necessary being; the explanation is necessitated in its own existence.
3. David Hume - the universe does in fact exist necessarily and is the foundation we
reason everything else from.
 For the universe to be necessary, it must be:
Eternal & Changeless
4. Theory of General Relativity of Albert Einstein

The universe is expanding. And it was empirically confirmed by Edwin Hubble
in 1929 by using his invention—Hubble Space Telescope
This led to the conclusion that an expanding universe must have sprang into existence
at some point in the past.
5. Big Bang Theory

 Big Bang Theory (from the two physicists) is the evidence confirmed the existence of
finite universe. If the universe came from nothing,It means it came from the absence of
space, time, matter and energy.
 To avoid an infinite regress, the chain of explanation (of the existence of the universe) it
must end to necessary being. Anything necessarywould have to be able to be the first
cause in order to cause something else to exist. There is no reason to deny that the
necessary exist. Because the necessary being exists and that is the explanation why the
universe exists.
 Human nature is generally regarded as the collection of responses, behaviors, and

characteristics that are common to human beings.
These all based on more primitive structures that in other animals we’d call
“instincts”. All humans have these, they include things like altruism and group
cooperation, and also things like territoriality and aggression.They all evolved to
help our species survive.
Emotions arise from the most primitive part of the brain, the limbic system. They
too are survival reactions.Things like fear, rage, panicIn modern humans, these
are now filtered through the rest of our much more complex brain.But they remain
powerful forces that can easily overpower the “rational” parts of our brain.
So certainly, it’s in human nature to have emotional responses. They are modified
over millions of years.We are no longer likely to try to climb the nearest tree if we
hear a loud noise.But we still “duck and scan” upon hearing that noise.
(Werner,2018)
 Emotions are physiological and Mental.
In every situation our body tends to reponse. It is a sudden influx of physical,and
mental stimuli that you’ve experienced, the basic emotions has passed that has an
impact that leads to a series of physiological and mental change.
Rene Descartes
 Bible
 John 8:31-32
“So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly
my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
 1 John 4:6
“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God
does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of
falsehood.”
 2 Timothy 2:15
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to
be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
 Plants is consist of plant cell therefore plants exist even though majority of plants
doesn’t move.
 In Scientific Study there are a characteristics of a living organism that human
beings have therefore human beings exist.
MRS GREN. Living things display certain characteristics that may be absent from
material objects. MRS GREN is an acronym often used to help remember all the
necessary features of living organisms: Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth,
Reproduction, Excretion and Nutrition.(Basic Biology,2018)

1. According to some philosophers, the fundamental meaning of “belief” is confidence in
the testimony of other people. Thomas Hobbes, for example, maintained that belief
“beginneth at some saying of another, of whose ability to know the truth, and of whose
honesty in not deceiving, he doubteth not….”
2. John Locke, for example, equated “knowledge” with certainty and “belief” with
probability. To know that p is true is to be certainof its truth, whereas to believe that p is
true is to accept it with some degree of probability.
Philosophy (Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz)
1. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes, "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could
permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so
long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good".
The potential for love out weighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for
a time.
2. My students found Augustine intellectually clear but emotionally unsatisfying. They
accepted that God did not create evil, but still asked why God allowed evil to persist?
Why would a good God allow the Holocaust, genocide, racism, terrorism, etc?
CHAPTER IX
Synthesis
RENE DESCARTES:
- Berkeley believes that there are only perceptions. Without a perceiver we cannot
exists. God is the ultimate perceiver that allow us to exist.
- The damaged brain may affect the body. Example of that when you are unconscious.
"God"
- If Skepticism is to doubt everything to find true knowledge then why did he neglected
this belief
it.”
- You only get offended if you know they are right. But you will not get offended if
you know your worth and capabilities, so if someone tries to offend you and you
know that it’s not true, it will never break you.
- Everything that we see is it is. Therefore we can accept and say that everything we
see is true without realizing and understanding it.
- How can we be knowledgeable of everything if we only see things in anything we

see? We people who have knowledge must always be positive for us to be successful.
“When it is not in our power to follow what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”
- We Should strive to know and to follow what is true and to speak in full truthfulness
at all time and at all cost and we human will always seek for the truth for a certain
satisfactions and to answer certain questions in our minds and even our hearts.
“I think, therefore I am” (When you doubt, you exist.)
- According to Nietzsche its more accurate to say “there are thoughts” because the idea
he is having come from somewhere else.
"We have freewill, enabling us to avoid error by refusing to assent to anything doubtful"
- Applying the philosophy of Decartes, we can doubt our freewill. Do we really have
freewill? Therefore, we cannot be sure if doubting is also an error. It can be that the
evil demon is just deceiving us due the fact the only thing that we can be certain is we
are doubting.
"We didn’t make ourselves: God made us, so he exists"
- Evolution of man
“Everything is Self-evident”
- The universe still a mystery, means that we still cannot fully understand this.
BARUCH SPINOZA:
“Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a
- So if man is a contingent being therefore there is a contingent being in the universe.
- Hence, if God exist in thought but do not have physical or concrete existence then he
is not perfect. And this contradicts the idea of God, the absolute God, as perfect being
- We don’t have to always depend on him, we have a own mind we should use for our
own.
- Therefore, God is our world and there has a world because of God’s existence
- The object we love and are attached to another person and their qualities, whether
they will true or they will betray you, results to our own happiness or unhappiness.
- Feelings emerge from the most primary piece of the brain which is called cerebrum,
the limbic system. They too are survival reactions… Things like fear, rage, panic. In
present day people, these are currently filtered through the rest of our considerably
more complex mind. In any case, they stay powerful that can undoubtedly overwhelm
the “rational” parts of our brain. So surely, it's in human instinct to have emotional
responses.
Pantheism (all is God)
- Spinoza’s Philosophy that all is God by means of divinity of nature that we are all
GOTTFRIED WILHELM LEIBNIZ:

- If the explanation of the existence of universe cannot be found in a necessary being
therefore the universe has no explanation for its existence.
- How will it still be that his Philosophy about reason is true if Contingency cant be
explained, how will God and other contingent things can be true and its purpose.
- We learn from our past because we already know what mistake we made and that
mistake will help us to make our present become bigger also same for the future.
- If the universe does exist then everything on it should be considered as a necessary

also.
- Our mind is a blank sheet, without our senses we won’t be able to gain knowledge
about anything.
- Based on the Philosophy of Rene Descartes “I think therefore I am” we can also
prove that we exist; as we can state: “If we think that we exist then we really exist”
therefore even if we refuse to act, we still exist. As we doubt our existence that proves
that we’re thinking therefore we exist.
GENERALIZATION:
Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Wilhelm Leibniz are all rationalist and their Philosophies
became known in the 17th Century. The three philosophers have something to do with the mind,
intellect, reasoning, and logic; And all of them are questioning: where can we find the absolute
truth, the existence of human, and the existence of God. That can be contradicted also by
reasoning, logical arguments, science and religion.
CHAPTER X
Conclusion
Every philosopher has their own philosophy; something they believe in, hold unto and
fight for. At the heart of those philosophies are their philosophical arguments. These arguments
involves the use of reasoning as well as the use of logical and rational thinking. However, there
are occasions that despite of the logical reasons they have provided to help on supporting their
claims and due to the fact that humans continuously seeks for answers with the help of modern
technology and discoveries, their philosophies were still delapitated. With the philosophers that
are assigned to us, we have proved our arguments and tried hard to oppose their philosophies.
With Baruch Spinoza's philosophies, we have observed that all of his philosophical
arguments are strong philosophies; but as time passes by, the scope of the natural reasoning of
humangrew wide and fast together with discoveries that helps on unravelling the truth. In the
present, these two are some of the vital things for seeking the truth; discoveries and reasoning.
Just like Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz was also a prominent philosopher of the medieval time.
He is famous for his saying that "Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence". In his
philosophy, we have came up to the counter argument that will oppose this and we used the
universe itself as a counterargument. For his other philosophies, we have used our logical thinking
and provided it with scientific studies and researches.
And lastly, we will not forget Rene Descartes for his proposition,"Cogito ergo sum" or "I
think, therefore I am". For his other propositions and philosophies, we have observed that some of
those has loophole. Thus, we created our own propositions contradicting his works.
In conclusion, due to some ambiguity to their propositions and philosophies, we have

finally came up to our propositions with the help of logical thinking, researches, discoveries and
other philosophies that were able to support our arguments.
CHAPTER XI
Bibliography
Thinking Through Faith. (2019). Retrieved from:

http://thinkingthroughfaith.com/2017/11/07/what-is-the-necessary-being/
Sadle, G. (2019). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/eds/
Dunbar, B. (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-hubble-

finds-universe-is-expanding-faster-than-expected
AllAboutScience.(2018). Retrieved from: https://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Knowing Jesus. (2016). Retrieved from:https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Perfection,-

Divine
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2016)https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-

argument/
Biographia. (2014, Oct 14). Retrieved from: https://www.biography.com/scholar/rene-

descartes?fbclid=IwAR2_lWBmFKFZi9-3jX_AbRjy9qX-gt-
Wa25_H3p8C6TEplSpKMenFOucVYk
Famous Scientists. (2019). Retrieved from: https://www.famousscientists.org/gottfried-
leibniz/?fbclid=IwAR1wN9iHrtubcpLu6ouVI6ONsQMZeR7CHfPCTeSciSB2hlrY-
uTMA05jvBY
"What are emotions, and why do we have them?" (13 September 2010).
HowStuffWorks.com. Retrived from: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/what-are-
emotions.htm?fbclid=IwAR0tdrpMgrDOtrrid93OJ7MwoyUJvoZUNtXXogRno8mPr-
kZcQtNQd60JOQ 25 August 2019
Quora. (2018, Jul 19). Retrieved from: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-human-nature-to-feel-

emotions-What-is-human-nature
Journeyisingrace.(2017, Nov 16). Retrieved from:

http://www.journeysingrace.com/2017/11/16/strive-goodness-truth-grace-gracemoments-link/
Rampages.us.(2016, Jan 20). Retrieved from: https://rampages.us/tyland/tag/strive-to-tell-the-

truth/
BiologyDictionary.net.(2019).Retrieved from: https://biologydictionary.net/plant-cell/
BasicBiology.net.(2018).Retrieved from: https://basicbiology.net/biology-101/mrs-gren
dkfindout.com.(2019).Retrieved from: https://www.dkfindout.com/uk/animals-and-nature/what-

is-living-thing/
Quora. (2018, Jun 12).Retrieved from: https://www.quora.com/What-could-be-a-possible-counter-

argument-to-Descartes-theory-of-cogito-ergo-sum
Missionorg.(2018, Feb 9). Retrieved from: https://medium.com/the-mission/belief-versus-

doubt-welcome-to-the-creative-mind-dfd6353f7f53
CHAPTER XII
Narrative
This group project was greatly done by the members of our group which consists of ten
(10) members namely Alyssa Rodriguez, Gabrielle Borja, Franzie Abadiano, Erica Joi Lopez,
Justine Tan, Kristine Empaynado, Fremicko Lim, John Paul Embalsado, Louis Andrei De los
Reyes, Paul Andrada, James Cabrera and Matthew Velasco by the month of September, A.Y.
2019-2020.
Every part of this project was dissiminated to each members. Unfortunately, some of them
did not succeed on accomplishing and fulfilling all the task that was given to them with respect to
the ample time that they had. There were some who made the task completely and on time but
there were also few who have failed to do so. Sadly,one of our groupmate have not passed any
work or output that would serve as his contribution in this project and he is James Cabrera.
We are sincerely and genuinely hoping for the justness and fairness of this group project
results to give justice to those who have given their whole time, attention and effort and who
inflicted sacrifice and dedication while doing this.

Philosophy Final Paper Final Nato

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Philosophy Final Paper Final Nato

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PHILOSOPHICAL

Introduction to the Philosophy of a Human Person

Alyssa M. Rodriguez Fremicko Lim

Gabrielle Borja John Paul Embalsado

Kristine Empaynado Louis Andrei Delos Reyes

Erica Joi Lopez Paul Andrada

Justine Tan James Cabrera

Franzie Abadiano Matthew Velasco

Mr. Aldjay A. Magnaye

II. Philosophers’ Background

IV. Contradictions to their philosophies

VI. Philosophical argument

VIII. Related studies from the contradictions

XII. Narrative Report

As we live in a world full of curiosity as well as unanswered questions, people began to

10 Major Contributions and Accomplishments

Early Life and Education:

 Was born on 1st of July 1646 in Leipzig, Saxony, Germany.

Contributions and Achievements:

 He made important contributions to philosophy, engineering, physics, law, politics,

Later Life and Death:

Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)

Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)

"God exists and is abstract and impersonal"

Philosophy (Wilhelm Leibniz)

" Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence"

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

“I think therefore, I am”

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

Cartesian Doubt or Skepticism

Philosophy (Gottfreid Willhelm Leibniz)

Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)

"Pantheism" (all is God)

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)

Philosophy (Gottfried Leibniz)

“The present is bigger with the future”

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)

Philosophy (Wilhelm Leibniz)

“The universe is necessary; thus the universe exists.”

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

“Except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power.”

Philosophy (Gottfried Leibniz)

Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)

Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)

“Do not weep, nor indignant, Understand.”

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

Philosophy (Gottfried Leibniz)

“He who does not act does not exist.”

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

“I think, therefore I am”

If we are going to question ones’ existence, why do we have to do the process of

Philosophy (Gottfried Leibniz)

Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)

Philosophy (Baruch Spinoza)

"God exists and is abstract and impersonal"

Philosophy (Wilhelm Leibniz)

" Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence"

Philosophy (Rene Descartes)

“I think therefore, I am”