New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

PHI2010 Exam 1 Study Guide

by: Lauren Carstens

PHI2010 Exam 1 Study Guide PHI2010

Marketplace > Florida State University > PHI2010 > PHI2010 Exam 1 Study Guide
Lauren Carstens
GPA 4.0

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Here's my detailed study guide of everything we went over in class so far. Good luck!
Intro to Philosophy
Dr. Clarke
Study Guide
50 ?




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


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Allison Fischer University of Alabama

"I signed up to be an Elite Notetaker with 2 of my sorority sisters this semester. We just posted our notes weekly and were each making over $600 per month. I LOVE StudySoup!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.