Term
|
Definition
A set of sentences, one of which is said to follow from the others.
If the premises are true, a rational person MUST accept the conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An argument is sound IFF the argument is valid, and the premises are true. |
|
|
Term
| What are the 3 kinds of arguments for the existence of God? |
|
Definition
1. Cosmological
2. Teleological
3. Ontological |
|
|
Term
| Explain Cosmological theories. |
|
Definition
| (Aquinas) There has to be a 1st cause/1st mover, which always traces back to God. |
|
|
Term
| Explain Teleological theories. |
|
Definition
| (Argument from design) take some fact about the world (goal-directedness) and the best explanation for that feature is that the it is the product of design: God is the designer. |
|
|
Term
| Explain Ontological theories. |
|
Definition
| Takes the definition or concept of God and deduces that God exists, a priori. |
|
|
Term
| What are Prudential Arguments? |
|
Definition
| (Pascal's Wager) Doesn't attempt to prove that God exists but rather that it's in your best interest to believe that God exists. |
|
|
Term
| Explain Aquinas's 1st and 2nd ways to God. |
|
Definition
P1: Everything has an efficient cause.
P2: Nothing is the cause of itself.
P3: The chain of causes can't go on forever.
C4: Therefore, there must be a first cause.
C5: Therefore, God exists. |
|
|
Term
| What is Problem 1 with Aquinas's argument? |
|
Definition
| There is a contradiction between P1 & P3. If everything had a cause, the chain of causes would go on forever. The contradiction suggests that the premises themselves are mutually inconsistent. They can't all be true. |
|
|
Term
| What is Problem 2 with Aquinas's Argument? |
|
Definition
| C5 doesn't necessarily follow from C4, only that "God" is the first cause. It doesn't prove the traditional concept of God. |
|
|
Term
| What is Aquinas's subargument P3? |
|
Definition
Inductive absurtive
If the chain of causes were infinite:
1. There would be no first cause.
2.If there were no first cause, there would be no causes now.
3. But there are causes now.
Therefore it cannot be infinite. |
|
|
Term
| What is Aquinas's subargument P2? |
|
Definition
Also IA
Assume something can cause itself.
1. Something would exist prior to existence.
2. But nothing can exist prior to its existence.
Therefore, nothing is the cause of itself. |
|
|
Term
| What is wrong with subargument P3? |
|
Definition
The Fallacy of Equivocation (terms are inconsistent from premise to premise).
Premise 1 is true on an infinite chain of causes.
Premise 2 is true on a finite chain of causes. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
| | God Exists |
God doesn't exist
|
| Believe God exists |
TB, eternal salvation +∞ |
FB, did it all for nothing, -100 |
| Believe God doesn't exist |
FB, hell, -∞ |
TB, live a carefree life, +100 |
It's in your best interest to believe God exists.
|
|
Term
| What are the objections to Pascal's Wager? |
|
Definition
1. It makes assumptions about the nature of God, and his "payoff structure"
2. "You ought to believe that God exists" doesn't lead to the belief that God exists. |
|
|
Term
| What is Doxastic Voluntarism? |
|
Definition
| A person can will themselves to believe whatever they want. Pascal says you should behave as if you believe and the belief itself will follow |
|
|
Term
| Explain the argument from design. |
|
Definition
1. Among objects that act for an end (goal), some have minds, while others do not.
2. An object that acts for a goal but doesn't have a mind must have been created by some thing with a mind.
Therefore, There must be something with a mind that creates all mindless things.
Therefore, God exists. |
|
|
Term
| What is wrong with the argument from design? |
|
Definition
The birthday fallacy.
This fallacy assumes that because every person has a single day on which he or she is born, that there is a single day that is everybody's birthday. |
|
|
Term
| How is the birthday fallacy applicable to the argument from design? |
|
Definition
| The argument from design parallels the birthday fallacy in that it assumes that there is a single event outside of the natural world (God) to which each event in nature traces back. |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between deductive and abductive arguments? |
|
Definition
In deductive arguments, the conclusion always follows from the premises.
Abductive arguments are inferences to the best explanation among competing hypotheses. |
|
|
Term
| What is the surprise principle? |
|
Definition
| The surprise principle suggests that if H₁ were true, then O would be expected & if H₂ were true, O would not be expected, then H₁ is favored over H₂. |
|
|
Term
| Explain Aquinas & Paley's abductive argument. |
|
Definition
O: Intricacy of organisms & their ability to reproduce & survive.
H₁: God
H₂: Randomness
(H₁ favored over H₂) |
|
|
Term
| How is evolution understood in philosophy? |
|
Definition
| Evolution is the theory that all present day life is related and can be represented on a family tree. |
|
|
Term
| What is natural selection? |
|
Definition
| Natural selection explains how the diversity of organisms came about based on heritability, fitness, and novel mutants. |
|
|
Term
| How does the abductive argument including E&NS work? |
|
Definition
O: Organisms
H₁: God
H₂: Randomness
H₃: E&NS
H₃ favored.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
O: Organisms
H₁: God
H₂: Randomness
H₃: E&NS
H₄: E&NS + God
It seems that no theory would be favorable between H₃ & H₄
|
|
|
Term
| What is the principle of parsimony and how is it applicable to the abductive argument? |
|
Definition
| The principle of parsimony suggests that the simpler explanation is always better. In this case H₃ (E&NS) would be favorable over H₄ (E&NS + God) |
|
|
Term
| What is the traditional concept of God? |
|
Definition
| God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. |
|
|
Term
| Explain Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God. |
|
Definition
1: God by definition is that which none greater can be concieved.
2. God by definition must include the property of existence.
3. If G is part of the concept of F, then G is F is a tautology.
4. If existence is part of the concept of God, then God exists is a tautology.
5. Therefore, God exists. |
|
|
Term
| What are Gaunilo's objections to Anselm's theory? |
|
Definition
"The argument from the perfect island" (parallel argument)
If you believe the a priori argument, you would be committed to the existence of the perfect island, the perfect dog, the perfect chair, etc. |
|
|
Term
| What are Kant's objections to Anselm's theory? |
|
Definition
Existence is not a great-making property.
Ex: martians and existomartians vs. dogs and red dogs
Also, one cannot establish the existence of something by simply adding existence to the concept. |
|
|
Term
| Explain the Argument from Evil. |
|
Definition
1. If God exists, God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good.
2. If God is all powerful, God could prevent evil.
3. If God is all knowing, God knows about the evil in the world.
4. If God is all good, God would prevent evil.
5. If God exists, evil doesn't exist.
6. Evil exists.
Therefore, God doesn't exist. |
|
|
Term
| What are the 2 strategies for objecting the Argument from Evil? |
|
Definition
1. Show that God lacks one of the three said properties.
2. The free will defense. |
|
|
Term
What is the free will defense?
|
|
Definition
| God gave us free will. Evil in the world is not the product of God, but the misuse of human free will. |
|
|
