PHI2010 Exam 1 Study Guide
PHI2010 Exam 1 Study Guide PHI2010
Popular in Intro to Philosophy
Popular in Department
This 7 page Study Guide was uploaded by Lauren Carstens on Tuesday September 27, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PHI2010 at Florida State University taught by Dr. Clarke in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 170 views.
Reviews for PHI2010 Exam 1 Study Guide
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/27/16
PHI2010 Exam 1 Study Guide The Theological Argument The all perfect being is o Omniscient o Omnipotent o Omnibenevolent Analytical Version o 1. The world and every part of it, is like a machine, in that its parts are adjusted to each other, with means adapted to ends o 2. Machines are products of design, thought, wisdom and intelligence o 3. Generally, when effects resemble each other, their causes do, as well o 4. Therefor, the world, too, is a product of design, thought, wisdom and intelligence A posteriori o It has at least one premise that can be known only from existence Deductive vs. Inductive o Deductive argument: With a wellformed (valid) deductive argument, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the argument o Inductive argument: The truth of the premises doesn’t guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but their truth is meant to show that they conclusion is probably true Teleological Argument Premise 1: o Everything has this feature so the world as whole has this feature o Not made to have this feature, just recognized that they do have it Premise 2: o The watch is designed in a certain way and with specific materials because people were acting purposefully when creating it Premise 3: o If the symptoms are alike, it is likely that the illness (source) is alike o Things can be similar, but have very different causes Relies on an analogy o The world to a machine Critical Examination by David Hume o Criticizing, evaluating and offering objections to the teleological argument o Objections argue that the argument doesn’t prove the claim to be true (he is not claiming the world wasn’t made by God and that the conclusion is false) o Competing Hypothesis Objections Observation of the world can not prove it was made by God There may be good evidence that the world was created like a machine, but there is no evidence it was God who did it Consider one maker vs multiple Consider perfect vs finitely perfect Consider Eternal vs mortal Consider spiritual vs material Examination does not favor one hypothesis over the other Observation of machines favors multiple, finitely perfect, mortal makers o Weak Analogy Objections The argument doesn’t provide good evidence for the truth of its conclusion because the analogy between the world and machines is not strong enough We know from experience that things similar to each other are generally produced by causes similar to each other We also know that things that are similar can be produced by causes very different from one another o We can not rule this out as a possibility so we can not conclude the world came to be as a machine came to be The world is unlike a machine because it is vastly older and bigger The most similar thing to our world would be another world We don’t have any experience with the production of another world Another analogy: The world is somewhat like a machine o Our experience with machines can provide some explanation into how the world was made o The world is more like a plant or animal Products of generation and vegetation Parts adjusted to each other, with means adapted to ends o We only have experience with things like the world being created so it is right to assume it is just as likely the world is the offspring of other worlds as it is possible that it was made by design by an intelligent being Random variation and natural selection o Complex things can be created by very simple things over time due to this The world was probably made by intelligent design or by random variation with natural selection o It doesn’t favor one over the other There can be a bad argument for a true conclusion and we are focusing on if the argument can make us believe the conclusion The Cosmological Argument 1. There exists some beings 2. Every being that exists must be either a dependent being or a selfexistent being 3. It cannot be the case that every being that exists is a dependent being 4. Therefore, there exists a selfexistent being o A posteriori o Deductive argument Definitions o Dependent Being: A thing whose existence is due to the activity of another being (or beings) o Self Existent Being: A thing whose existence is due to its own nature, whose existence follows from its essence o Uncaused being: A being whose existence isn’t due to anything at all Why is this not possible? Proponents of the Cosmological Argument o The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) For everything, there must be a sufficient reason PSRa: For every being that exists, there must be a sufficient reason or an explanation why it exists rather than not If this is true, there can not be an uncaused being If this is true, premise 2 must be true Premise 3 o Why can there only be DBs? o There has to be a first one o PSRa does not rule this out as a possibility because, if they continue to go back without there being a first one, every being can be explained by another PSRb: For every positive fact, there must be a sufficient reason, an explanation of why it is so rather than not so o Premise 3 has to be true if PSRb is true o If there is an infinite sequence of DBs, than the idea that DBs exist is a fact There must be an explanation of why and no DB can provide an explanation for themselves So is PSR true and how can we know? o It is an a priori truth (known independently from experience) o It is either self evident or it can be demonstrated as a priori from selfevident principles It is self evident if it is evidently true and if anyone who understands what it says and considers it without bias, understands that it true PSR does not pass this test because not everyone understands/accepts that it is true o As rational creatures, we may presuppose that everything is able to be explained There still may be things that we presuppose to be true that are, in fact, false Is there evidence from experience/science that PSR is true? o We’ve discovered explanations for many things, but does this give enough reason that there must be an explanation for everything that is o Science may give information regarding what laws of nature are, but not why it is that rather than not The Ontological Argument Argument o 1. God (the being which none greater is possible) exists in the understanding o 2. It is possible for God to exist in reality o 3. If something exists only in the understanding but could have existed in reality, then it could have been greater than it is o 4. Suppose that God exists only in the reality o 5. Then God could have been greater than He is o 6. Then God is a being than which is greater than possible o 7. Then (absurdly) the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible o 8. Hence, it is false that God exists only in the understanding o o 9. Therefor, God exists in reality as well as in the understanding Characteristics o A priori (can be known independent of experience) o Deductive (if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true) o A reductio ad absurdum He turn’s the fool’s claim on himself Proves the statement is true by stating the absurdity of the results from the denial of the statement th Anselm (11 century) o God is the being in which no greater or more perfect being is possible o A greatness/perfection: a goodmaking property A thing that possess such a property is good, in some way, to some degree, in virtue of possessing that property Just by possessing this property, a being is good in some way Rene Descartes (17 century) o Compared the argument to a geometry proof Premise 1: o We have an idea of the being than which no greater being is possible o He exists in the understanding Premise 2: o It is possible that the being in which no greater being is possible exists in reality o It is possible for it to exist in reality, not just the understanding Premise 3: o If something exists only in the understanding, but it could have existed in reality, it could have been more perfect than by not existing in reality o Existence is a property/ perfection Premise 4: o Suppose that God exists in the reality, not just the understanding o If He existed in the reality, he could have been greater than He is, which means a greater being is possible contradiction It must be that God exists in reality and it must be false that God only exists in the understanding Kant’s Objection o Existence is not a perfection It might be a precondition of having any properties at all Everything that exists has certain properties and things that don’t exist do not have any properties at all Gaunillo’s Objection o Objected that we can’t prove, just by thinking, that a certain thing exists Arguments that have the form of the Ontological Argument can lead us to conclusions that are plainly false o Arguments of this form are not to be trusted because they don’t demonstrate that the conclusion is true o Example: the perfect island Such a thing exists in the understanding and it is possible to exist in reality If it existed in the reality, it would be more perfect Suppose the island only existed in the understanding Then, absurdly, the island than which none more perfect is possible is one than which a more perfect island is possible because one existing in reality is more perfect This is plainly false and uses the same argument style as the Ontological Argument so this form of argument is untrustworthy Anselm’s response: o This form of reasoning employed in the Ontological Argument is inapplicable to the example of an island o Why? The most perfect island may be an impossibility just like the integer that is greater than all other integers o What about the parallel claim in Anselm’s argument? Is Premise 2 true and how can we tell whether something is possible or not? If we know that a certain thing does exist, we know that it can exist We can also tell that some things that don’t exist could have existed Not everything is possible. Could have existed o Can we tell in the same way whether God exists? Leibniz says o If the concept is coherent, the thing is possible o If the concept of the thing is incoherent, the thing is not possible o Every possible being either exists or does not exist, but could have existed o This test is unreliable when it comes to concepts like that of God The concept of God is the concept of a being in possession of every perfection (Kant’s objection aside) The idea of God is the idea of an existing being because it has a quality (perfection) o Remember the unicorn/ xunicorn example A unicorn is possible because it has the quality of horsiness and a horn A Xunicorn has horsiness, a horn and existence. This is impossible because we know it does not exist and, with this, it could not have existed because things that could have existed lack existence (which the xunicorn would hypothetically possess) The Problem of Evil The Argument o 1. There exists a great deal of evil, much of it is extremely bad. o 2. If an all-perfect being existed, such evil would not exist o 3. Therefor, there does not exist an all-perfect being If this being is omniscient, there is no evil this being is not aware of If this being is morally perfect, it would not want these evils to exist If this being was all powerful, it could eliminate these evils Reasons an all perfect being may have for allowing such evils to exist o Justification o Commonly, what is said to justify God’s creating or allowing the evils that exist is that, without them, certain greater goods could not exist, or certain greater evils could not be avoided We need to prove that God can not produce the greater good without these evils A theodicy: A presentation of what, one claims to know, are god’s reasons for producing or allowing the evils that exist A defense: A presentation of what, one claims, there is a real possibility are God’s reasons for producing or allowing the evils that exist Moral vs Natural Evil o Moral Evil: The misdeeds of rational beings Ex: Murder o Natural Evil: Suffering and the natural phenomena that cause it Ex: Diseases, birth defects, earthquakes A Free Will Defense o 1. There are certain greater goods-goods whose goodness outweighs the badness of the evils that exist-that could not exist if we did not have free wills o 2. God has given us free will so that it is possible for these greater goods to exist o 3. God cannot both give us free will and ensure that we not misuse it o 4. And now, we do often misuse our free will, and the evils that exist result from this misuse of our free will o 5. God is justified in allowing these evils to exist, for without doing so, the indicated greater goods could not exist Van Inwagen claims God could not give us free will and prevent us from misusing it o First Challenge: A theory of free will You are free to A just in case were you to want to A, you would A If this is what free will is, then God could give us free will and ensure that we always freely do the right thing, by always giving us desires to do right things and never giving us desires to do the wrong things o Van Inwagen objects: this view of free will is mistaken Consider the deltas and epsilons in Brave New World Early conditioning ensures they only do what the alphas choose for them to do Nothing prevents them from doing what they alphas want According to the theory of free will, they have free will o Second Challenge: Animal Suffering Billions of years before the first human beings existed, non- human animals lived and suffered Natural evil predated the first misdeeds of rational beings and it can’t be the result of those misdeeds Van Inwagen’s Free Will Defense, then, does not provide a justification for all of the evil that we know to have existed
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'