Feldman’s full Brian/Brain objection:

Brian is a normal person with accurate and well justified beliefs about the world around him. Brain, a Brain in a Vat, is Brian’s mental duplicate, and has experiences just like him. Brain also has beliefs that are analogues, or the same, as Brian’s. When Brian believes that he, Brian, is eating a hot fudge sundae, Brain believes that he, Brain, is eating a hot fudge sundae. When Brian believes that he, Brian, is taking a walk in the park, Brain also believes that he, Brain, is taking a walk in the park. This also applies to seeing objects, as when Brian believes that he, Brian, is seeing a bright red object: Brain also believes that he, Brain is seeing a bright red object. While Brian is right about each of these things, as he usually is, Brain is wrong every time. According to the process reliabilist, Brian knows these things and therefore his beliefs are justified, which he does. Brian’s belief forming processes are extremely reliable as a result. However, Feldman argues that a major problem arises with Brain: Feldman argues that Brain also has justified beliefs just like Brian, however, Brain’s justified beliefs have routinely led Brain to false conclusions. Therefore, Feldman concludes that justification is not necessary for forming true beliefs. Feldman’s Brian/Brain example looks extremely bad for the process reliabilist, as the Brian-Brain example provides a situation where an individual has a reliable, justified, belief-forming process, yet routinely arises to a false conclusion.

Atheist’s Counter-Objection to the Theist’s Objection:

The Atheist, in response to the Theist’s initial objection, would argue that there are two things that are wrong with the validity of the objection. The first is that, although God has managed to lift the stone, God can only lift the stone through some device and cannot lift it by himself; what if God misplaces the Gloves or breaks the pulley system, and for some reason a problem comes up where God cannot immediately replace these devices, then God is once again unable to lift the stone in any way. This would obviously not arise a big problem for it is just a large stone, but, for example, what if the stone rolled down a hill or mountain: God would not be able to stop the stone from crushing all the innocent people that reside at the bottom of this hill/mountain. In other words, the problem of God relying on devices to lift the stone doesn’t arise from God not being able to lift the stone himself, but the fact that God would not be an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being that would have control over everything in the universe. The Stone itself could be a placeholder for something much more dangerous, such as an outer-worldly force created by God that is more powerful than God: if God did not have the devices to contain this creature, then the whole universe would be at risk of danger. The Atheist would acknowledge the Theist’s point that God would create a device that he could only wear, but not if the device could be broken or misplaced. Although the chances of something going wrong with this device is low, it is never impossible. The idea of God relying on this device rather than his own power puts his omnipotence into question. Furthermore, the Atheist could argue that the glove would be more powerful than God itself, and therefore would the glove be the true supreme being that is only using God as a catalyst(?) – for the glove is powerful enough to give God the power to lift the stone that God could not lift himself–. Moreover, the Atheist could ignore the fact that God still cannot lift the stone himself and focus more on the fact that God is essentially using a ‘shortcut’ to lift the stone, and that God is deceiving others by creating this glove: further putting the ‘omnibenevolent’ aspect of his character into doubt. The fact that God is utilizing an ulterior method in lifting the stone showcases that God is not the “morally perfect” being that the Theist wants to think because God is effectively utilizing a device to complete the monumental task of lifting the stone, rather than his own power (this objection also puts God’s omnipotence into question as well).

All in all, the paradox of the Stone is a dilemma proposed by the Atheist in hopes of providing a logical argument that God is not an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being; yet, the Theist has provided many objections to the Atheist’s line of thought, sparking an exchange over the validity and soundness of the argument and ultimately the existence of God/an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being.

Richard Feldman’s New Demon’s Objection is an argument put together in order to disprove Process Reliabilism through its premises. Feldman’s objection to Process Reliabilism has led to many Process Reliabilists themselves coming up with counter objection to Feldman’s scenarios; however, before we divulge into these counter objections to Feldman, Feldman’s objection itself must be explained, along with other key details.

Brian/ Brain Objection + Why Feldman believes in his premises:

Feldman offers a modernized version of the New Demons account, which I will dub the “Brian/Brain Objection”. This Objection moves to the same conclusion as the New Demons Objection, process reliabilism is false, but utilizes a different situation. However, before we dive into the argument, a couple of terms need to be clarified. BIV refers to a “brain in a vat”, which essentially is a brain in a vat whose mental procedures are controlled by scientists and are computer generated; PR is just the shortened version of process reliabilism, and is the view that a person is justified in believing something if that thing is produced by reliable, belief-forming processes. We are now ready to view the simple version of the argument, and Feldman’s lengthy explanation for the arguments’ premises.

The Simple version of the argument follows this structure:

1. The BIV has justified but false beliefs about the external world
2. The BIV couldn’t have justified but false beliefs about the external world if PR is true
3. Therefore, PR is false.

Feldman further elaborates on his premises with a drawn out example of the Brian/Brain objection, clarifying the objection as well as showcasing why Feldman himself believes his premises. 

Theist’s Objection to the Paradox of the Stone:

The Theist, however, would see the second and third premises as invalid, as it is unlikely that a supreme being like God would not make any attempts to lift this ‘unliftable’ stone that they have created. For example, the Theist could argue that God would make a pair of mechanized gloves that would give God an increased amount of force, which would allow God to lift the stone; or perhaps God would create a pulley system that would lift and transport the stone for him. Even though God would not lift the stone by himself, he would still have control over the devices that can lift the stone. This argument would follow this structure:

1. God created a stone he, or anyone else, cannot lift
2. In response to this, God creates a pair of gloves that only he can wear
3. These pair of gloves give God the extra strength to lift the stone
4. Therefore, God can lift the stone with these gloves

Or,

1. God created a stone he, or anyone else, cannot lift
2. In response to this, God creates a pulley system
3. This pulley system can lift and transport the stone, but only with God (and only god) controlling it
4. Therefore, God can lift the stone

These arguments showcase that God would create a solution to his unliftable stone problem and that despite not lifting the stone directly, God would still have the power to lift the stone because he would have the exclusive power/access to control the equipment that can lift the stone. Essentially, God would be able to lift the stone through a piece of equipment, and since God is the only being that can control this piece of equipment, he is the only being that would be able to lift the stone. It is a hypothetical syllogism that follows that form of God, (A), being the only being who can wield the glove, (B) ; this glove can give the wearer the power to lift the ‘unliftable rock’, (C). [A->B]

[B->C]

Therefore, A -> C, or God can possess the power to lift the unliftable stone that he created. No other being, even with the gloves or pulley system, would be able to lift the stone because God is the only being that can wear/control these pieces of equipment: therefore, God is the singular omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being that can indirectly lift the stone that he created to be unliftable.

Introduction:

The Paradox of the Stone is an argument created by religious skeptics trying to disprove the omnipotence (eventually leading to the existence) of God by introducing a stone that God would not be able to lift. Essentially, the skeptic reasons that if God created a stone that they would not be able to lift, God would not be omnipotent, or have ultimate power; likewise, if God couldn’t create this stone in the first place, their omnipotence would also be put into question. The Paradox of the Stone is the most famous example of the omnipotence argument, and ultimately provides a line of reasoning for why God is false, hence why this argument has sparked many debates between the theist and the atheist between the validity and soundness of the argument. However, before I divulge my objections/counter-objections (or rather the objections from the Theist and counter objection from the Atheist), to the Paradox of the Stone, I must properly lay out the argument and its premises. 

The Paradox of the Stone and its premises:

The Paradox of the stone follows this format:

1. Either God can:
   1. Create a stone so heavy he can’t lift or,
   2. God cannot create a stone so heavy he can’t lift
2. If (a), then there is something God lacks the power to do (lift the stone), and therefore God is not omnipotent
3. If (b), then there is something that God lacks the power to do (can’t create the stone), and therefore God is not omnipotent
4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent

The Paradox of the Stone, as its name suggests, is a dilemma in which every possible choice leads to an undesirable outcome (at least for the theist), that God does not possess unlimited power. The Atheist then argues that since God does not possess this omnipotence, an essential defining characteristic according to the Theist: then God’s other characteristics, such as being omniscient and omnibenevolent, are also put into doubt. The reason that this argument has sparked the debate that it has, is because of the soundness of the premises, as the atheist who created this argument structured it in a way where the theist’s definition of God would be utilized; therefore any objection to the definition of God would be put to rest, something that was controversial in many other arguments (like Anselm’s ontological argument). In fact, I would go as far as to say that the debates on this argument are not about its soundness of it, but rather the validity of its premises. The Atheist would believe its premises to be true because it does follow a logical path that seems to ultimately ensure the doubt of God’s omnipotence: in other words, the Atheist takes the Theist’s definition of God and creates a dilemma in which God’s omnipotence is questioned, hence why they would believe their premises to be true. The argument itself is quite simple, and its soundness can rarely be put into question. However, objections can be made to the validity of the second and third premises.

Objection:

Now that Anselm’s Ontological Argument has been fully explained, I am going to raise my objection to one of its premises, as I believe that premise 1 (specifically, the notion that God is the greatest being that can conceive) is unsound. The reason premise 1 raises my objection, as well as controversy in general, is that Anselm’s definition of God is not accepted by everyone universally, and furthermore, begs the question to the ontological argument. In order to explain the bombshell of my former sentence, I shall provide an example as to why Anselm’s definition of God begs the question to his Ontological argument: a solid definition is only proven once an object exists. For example, the reason we know that an apple is a fruit is because it exists, which means that people can analyze apples and determine that they have seeds meaning that they are fruits. This would follow this argumentative structure:

1. Apples exists
2. Since Apples exists, humans can analyze the qualities of an apple and determine it has seeds
3. Since the Apple has seeds, we classify it as a fruit

As you can see, one can only reach the conclusion that an apple is fruit through the observation of its characteristics, which can happen because it exists, and this helps us formulate the definition of the apple. In other words, the definition of an apple is formed because it exists in the first place, and because it exists we can analyze it. Therefore, in order for Anselm’s first premise to be sound and uncontroversial, one would have to seek a universal definition of God that is backed by fact, however, this is what the argument is trying to prove, which means that Anselm has committed the informal fallacy of begging the question: because the definition of God can only be proven by the existence of God, and Anselm includes his own definition of God, the Ontological argument is unsound, because Anselm already assumes the existence of God in his premises before reaching the conclusion. Furthermore, as stated previously, Anselm’s definition of God also coincides with the Bible’s definition of God, and since the Bible is a holy text thought to have been written by God/Jesus Christ, Anselm’s definition of God also begs the question through this method.  In fact, if one ignores the previous statement as a whole/disregards Anselm begging the question, Anselm’s interpretation of God is still very controversial as a whole, since many different people throughout history have had very different interpretations of what God/a supreme being would be like: by using Anselm’s definition in the Ontological argument, which is essentially picking one of hundreds of interpretations of God, the reader is already conforming to Anselm’s claim that God is real. In conclusion, Anselm’s premise 1 begs the question in that it assumes the definition of God, when a definition can only be solidified as universal when the object it is referring physically exists and the analysis of such objects characteristics: since Anselm’s ontological argument is trying to prove/conclude the existence of God, the argument begs the question as it assumes god exists which is exemplified through Anselm’s use of his definition of god.

Introduction:

Anselm’s Ontological Argument is an argument that tries to prove the existence of God through pure reason, yet although the argument itself is valid and its premises are constructed in a way that the conclusion (ultimately, God exists) is guaranteed to be true, the soundness of the argument itself has raised many questions throughout history and has lead to many objections from many other philosophers (including me) to Anselm’s Ontological Argument. However before I divulge into my own objections and criticisms of Anselm’s Ontological Argument, it is essential to explain the arguments and its premises first, along with why Anselm himself believed his argument/premises to be true and irrefutable.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument and why Anselm believed in his premises:

 Anselm’s argument follows these premises:

1. Assume God, a being of which no greater can be conceived, doesn’t exist
2. If god doesn’t exist then I can conceive of a being that is greater than God, a being who has God’s attributes but who actually exists (call this B)
3. But then B would be greater than a being of which no greater can be conceived (God)
4. B cannot be greater than a being of which no greater can be conceived (God)
5. Therefore God exists

Essentially, Anselm states that God is the greatest being that can be thought of, and something that actually exists is something greater that doesn’t exist. Then, God has to exist because he is the greatest being one can think of, and it would not make sense if God didn’t exist, and a being that has god-like qualities exists, making this god-like being better than god; yet this outcome contradicts God’s nature of being the greatest being ever to be conceived. However, the reasons as to why Anselm believes in his premises are a bit more unreliable, and I can only really conclude that the main source of Anselm’s reasoning was his background as a priest/saint. Obviously, as an authoritative figure of the Catholic Church, Anslem’s beliefs would take route from traditional catholic thought and holy texts such as the Bible, which brings in a fallacy in his argument (which I will get to later). For example, Anselm’s definition of God most closely aligns with the Bible’s definition of God: that God is essentially the perfect being in every way, and that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. Therefore, I can conclude that the majority of Anselm’s premises/beliefs stemmed from his background as an important figure in the Catholic Church.

Here are some ways to reduce stress:

1) Meditation

Many doctors recommend meditation as a way to reduce stress. After meditation, people feel more refreshed and alert. Many report that problems no longer loom so large. The Transcendental Meditation technique, the most effective meditation known for reducing anxiety, provides very deep rest in less than 20 minutes. This deep rest dissolves deep-rooted stress and fatigue. Numerous research studies demonstrate the stress-reducing benefits of the TM technique, for example, breast cancer patients experienced better mental and emotional health and meditating college students felt less stressed.

2) Exercise

Everyone knows that they need to exercise more, but do they know why? You may have heard of endorphins being secreted during exercise giving you that “runner’s high.” Scientists have discovered that the process is more complicated than that. Regular exercise helps to decrease the production of stress hormones, such as cortisol, and neurotransmitters that are secreted during the stress response. So exercise helps to reduce the damage that long term stress can have on the body.

Research has also discovered that exercise decreases depression, lowers anxiety and helps people sleep. When exercising, all of the body’s systems – cardiovascular, muscular, nervous system, etc. – have to communicate with each other more closely than usual. Thus, a workout makes the body more efficient and enhances the body’s ability to respond to stress.

Two people may experience the same pressure, but react differently. Stress is not outside of you, but rather how you react to it. The second most stressful job in the world according to the Jobs Related Almanac is a firefighter, yet the firefighters’ network sites are filled with descriptions of how much they love their jobs. Some people enjoy flying; others white-knuckle the entire flight. You may like public speaking; your neighbor may hate it.

How to handle stress? Stress management techniques abound, but what about stress reduction? Tips on how to deal with stress psychologically are good, but it is faster and more direct to reduce stress in your body so you feel better. If your body is less stressed, you react more calmly. For example, when you have had a good night’s sleep, you don’t mind how many times someone cuts in front of you on the way to work. But if you haven’t slept well, then watch out!

Many of us dream of retiring to the beaches of Hawaii and living out our days in stress-free bliss. But have you ever talked to people who have actually retired? Many of them report that stress continues to plague them either in the form of poor health, concerns about finance, boredom or annoying neighbors at the assisted living home. Perhaps the key to a stress-free existence is not to remove the cause of the stress, but rather to improve one’s response to stress, as stress will always be inexorable in life.

Most researches agree that there are two kinds of stress: good stress – eustress – and bad stress – distress ; distress is most commonly acknowledged as the typical “stress” one hears in their daily life. Eustress is also important to your daily life, as many agree that Eustress helps with discipline and being the best person you can be. An example of Eustress would be facing against a rival team in sports: there is pressure to perform, but it allows us as humans to reach our maximum potential and rise to the occasion.