Agreement vs tolerance
Agreement is when one agrees with ones religious views. Tolerance is not agreeing with their religious beliefs, but you do put up with them
“theistic” conception of God
Monotheism. Divine Attributes: omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and self-existent and morally perfect.
“great-making” qualities. Properties that make something better
existence in reality is a perfection; makes something worthy or worship relates to the idea of the existence of God
Impossible things are things that do not and cannot exist in reality Something that can never be instantiated because the definition of the thing itself includes some sort of contradiction
Blind date example
“youre being set up on a blind date and the friend is describing the blind date, you are blown away by his attributes described by the friend, but there is one property that this person lacks, they only exist in our minds, not in reality. The blind date would have been better if the individual had the added feature of existing in reality instead of just in our mind
Reduction ad absurdum
Assumes negation of conclusion to establish conclusion
Negation of thesis leads to
Concept of instantiation
There must be an instance in the world that matches
Principle of sufficient reason
For every substantive fact Y there are some facts, the X’s, such that (i) the x’s ground Y and (ii) each one of the x’s is autonomous
Individual things and events need an explanation
All individual things and events have an explanation. All positive facts
Don't forget about the age old question of What is the concept of discourse?
have an explanation
Fallacy of composition
Just because members of set need explanation, the set itself does not The error of assuming that what is true of a member of a group is true
for the group as a whole
A being that is explained by another. Every being is either a dependent being or self-existing. By definition, dependent beings need to be explained by another, all dependent beings need to be explained by another, all dependent beings need to be able to depend on something. And a dependent being can’t depend on another dependent being.
Hume’s bumbling God
It was an attempt to get non
believers to believe in someone who initially created the universe. Trying to get them to believe that
something, some bumbling upstart deity had to create the universe initially
Kalam cosmological argument
1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist 3. therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
4. this cause is God
First way: argument by analogy 1. Aspects of natural world are like machines
2. machines are produced by intelligent design
3. therefore, aspects of natural world are produced by intelligent designer (God)
Second Way: interference to best explanation
1. World contains many well-crafted machines with functional parts 2. best explanation for this is an intelligent craftsman/designer 3. therefore, there exists an
intelligent craftsman/designer (God)
If you want to learn more check out Which part of the brain is the primary site for the receipt of visual input?
A way from going our random process and our selection process to create the illusion of our intelligent design when there really is no intelligent design. There are plants lined in perfect rows so we assume there is a gardener. There is some functionality for doing this. But then we discover that these plants will only grow where a mineral is, as well we discovers the mineral naturally occurs in straight lines. As well we discover the seeds got scattered everywhere. So the selection process comes about in natural order. You no longer need to assume the existence of a gardener. This is what Darwin did.
Argument for intelligent design. The physical laws that revealed the mechanical perfection of the
workings of the universe to be akin to a watch wherein the watchmaker is God.
Darwinism. Where an organism becomes better fit to its
environment to survive.
The argument that essentially God is a creator, that only some kind of intelligent designer could result in the fine-tuned universe we have.
1. the universe is fine-tuned
2. the existence of fine tuning is not improbably under theism. God would design universe to make intelligent life possible. There are certain assumptions made about what needs to be in place, such as organizational structure when it comes to the potential existence of intelligent life.
3. the existence of fine-tuning is very improbable under atheism. Incredible coincidences can’t be accidental.
4. therefore the existence of fine-
Don't forget about the age old question of What are reactants and products in a reaction?
tuning provides very strong
evidence for theism over atheism. Understanding the point, inadequate to simply say the universe had to be some low-probability way, so whats the big deal? There was only . 000001% of this universe actually coming into existence.
There is something specific about the way the universe came about and it is irrational to assume it happened by chance or by nature.
Reverse/inverse gambler’s fallacy
Mystical religious experiences
Hume’s miracle criteria
2 notions of eternity
A priori vs a posteriori
A fully perfect island is not possible. The argument for God’s existence concerns only things in general not anything in specific. It really just focuses on the idea of theory. Gaunilo points out that because a perfect island does not and cannot exist, a perfect being cannot exist in reality
1. things are
2. this cannot go on forever
3. therefore, there must be a first mover/changer/cause
4. this is God
God; a way in which people have described his is an unmoved mover.
We also discuss several other topics like What are the terms pertaining to the different levels of ecological organization?
What they are doing is looking at the world, and seeing that
something is caused by something else, so it leads to the regress of moving things. But he himself is not moved by anything even though he moves thing. Relates to the
Each part of the watch was created for the purpose of functionality, much like others being in nature
Inference to the best explanation
Appealing to the best hypothesis. Form abduction. Take a phenomenon that needs an explanation, so you infer to the hypothesis that does the best job of explaining the
Prime principle of confirmation
Mutant bug case
Prison break analogy
Extrovertive vs introvertive religious experience
Strong vs weak justification
Principle of credulity
Inviolable laws of nature
We also discuss several other topics like What is the need to belong, and what happens when it is not met?
1. Carefully explicate the ontological argument for the existence of God. What is a common objection to this argument? Do you think this objection works? Explain.
2. What is the 'principle of sufficient reason', and how does it operate in Clarke’s version of the cosmological argument for the existence of God? Do you find this principle plausible? Why or why not?
3. Present the Kalam version of the cosmological argument. What is the mathematical defense of the claim the universe had a beginning? Do you find this defense compelling? Why or why not.
4. Please explain Paley's argument for the existence of God as an argument by analogy (including a discussion of the analogues the way in which they are similar). What do you as the advantages and disadvantages of this argument? Do you think the argument ultimately succeeds? Explain. Don't forget about the age old question of What makes humans so different from other animals?
5. Carefully explain the socalled “finetuning” version of the argument by design. Describe the “multiverse” response to this argument, and one of the rebuttals that could be (or has been) offered by the finetuning advocate. Who do you think wins this debate and why?
6. For Broad, what is it about mystical religious experiences that suggests we should take them seriously as evidence for God? What is a possible criticism of his position, and how could Broad respond to this criticism. Which side do you think is right and why?
7. What is Hume’s argument against believing in miracles (be sure to explain how he defines miracles)? Describe one of Rowe’s objections to Hume’s argument. Who do you think is right and why?