×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to FSU - PHI 2010 - Study Guide
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to FSU - PHI 2010 - Study Guide

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

FSU / Philosophy / PHI 2010 / What are the two strategy to support general form of the principle, an

What are the two strategy to support general form of the principle, an

What are the two strategy to support general form of the principle, an

Description

School: Florida State University
Department: Philosophy
Course: Intro to Philosophy
Professor: Clarke
Term: Fall 2016
Tags:
Cost: 50
Name: PHI 2010 Exam 1 Study Guide
Description: This is an in-depth study guide with answers provided to the possible essay questions that can appear on exam 1! Only three of the questions in part 1 will appear, and the one question in part 2, but it is best to have the answers to all questions in preparation for the exam. Happy Studying! EDIT: There are only two exams before the final! Material covered on both exam 1 and two will appear so i
Uploaded: 09/27/2015
7 Pages 3 Views 57 Unlocks
Reviews

Anthony Bevacqua (Rating: )


Maegan Gee (Rating: )


Stephen Belles (Rating: )


Jacob Foreman (Rating: )


Dave Jean (Rating: )


Nathalie Perez (Rating: )


Ashley (Rating: )


trevor (Rating: )


Kylee Skinner (Rating: )


Lisa (Rating: )


Lindsey Holleger (Rating: )

Got a B


Daniel Lomba (Rating: )

gives answers to the problems and is a quick study tool


Christopher (Rating: )

Question 6 was wrong, and that was 40% of the test. 1-5 was really good though.



PHI 2010


What are the two strategy to support general form of the principle, and how to describe and objection to each og these strategy?



Fall 2015

Study Questions for the First Exam

Part I: Three of these questions will be on the exam; you will need to answer two of  those. Each answer should be about one and one-half pages long. Each will count  30% of the exam grade.

1. State  the  analogical  version  of  the  Teleological  Argument.  Explain  the  main  point of competing-hypotheses objections, and give an example of an objection  of this kind.

~ The  Teleological  Argument,  also  known  as  the  argument  from  design,  is  an  argument  for  the  existence  of  God,  or  in  general,  the  divine  being argued  by  William  Paley.  Paley  likened  the  universe  to  a  watch.  Like  a  watch,  he  said,  the  universe  consists  of  many  complex  parts  functioning  in  harmony  towards  some  useful end. In a watch the various parts are ordered such that they measure time;  in  the  universe,  such  that  they  support  life.  Paley  also  says  how  the  all-perfect  being is omniscient, omnipotent, & omnibenevolent. The argument states that 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.  Machines  are  products  of  design,  thought,  wisdom,  and  intelligence.  Generally,  when  effects  resemble  each  other,  their  causes do, as well. All of these statements lead to one conclusion: all of these being  true,  therefore,  the  world,  too,  is  a  product  of  design,  thought,  wisdom,  and  intelligence. This argument is of posteriori knowledge, meaning, that knowledge or  justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as most things are  in  science  (evolution)  and  personal  knowledge.  It  is  therefore,  a  deductive  argument: the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. There  are,  however,  some  competing-hypotheses  objections.  Even  if  the  Teleological  Argument  provides good  evidence  for  its  conclusion,  it  fails  to  provide  good  evidence that it was God who made the world (and observation of the world can’t  provide  that  further  evidence).  Some  of  these  competing  hypotheses  about  the  maker(s)  of  the  world  are:  there’s  just one  vs.  there  are  many,  it  is  (they  are)  eternal vs. it is (they are) only finitely perfect, it is (they are) eternal vs. it is (they  are) mortal, and it is (they are) immaterial (spiritual) vs. it is (they are) material. The  “there’s  just  one  vs.  there  are many”  argues  that  there  could’ve  either  been  only  one  creator  and  that  there  could’ve  also  been  many.  The  “it  is  (they  are)  infinitely perfect vs. it is (they are) only finitely perfect” argues that in one point of  view,  the  creator  could  be infinitely  perfect while in  the  other  point  of  view,  the  creator is only perfect to a certain extent. The “it is (they are) eternal vs. it is (they  are) mortal” argues that some view the divine creator to be eternal and immortal  and others view the creator to not be immortal and to have a normal lifespan like  normal humans do. Lastly, the “it is (they are) immaterial (spiritual) vs. it is (they


What is Kant's objection to the argument?



Don't forget about the age old question of Who is Lewis Terman?

are)  material”  have  split  views  on  whether  the  divine  creator  is  an  immaterial  thing, like a human or an animal, or it is a material thing, like a watch for example. If you want to learn more check out The process of improving the material conditions of people through diffusion of knowledge & technology.

2. State  the  analogical  version  of  the  Teleological  Argument.  Explain  the  main  point  of  weak-analogy  objections,  and  give  an  example  of  an  objection  of  this  kind.

~ The  Teleological  Argument,  also  known  as  the  argument  from  design,  is  an  argument  for  the  existence  of  God,  or  in  general,  the  divine  being argued  by  William  Paley.  Paley  likened  the  universe  to  a  watch.  Like  a  watch,  he  said,  the  universe  consists  of  many  complex  parts  functioning  in  harmony  towards  some  useful end. In a watch the various parts are ordered such that they measure time;  in  the  universe,  such  that  they  support  life.  Paley  also says  how  the  all-perfect  being is omniscient, omnipotent, & omnibenevolent. The argument states that 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.  Machines  are  products  of  design,  thought,  wisdom,  and  intelligence.  Generally,  when  effects  resemble  each  other,  their  causes do, as well. All of these statements lead to one conclusion: all of these being  true,  therefore,  the  world,  too,  is  a  product  of  design,  thought,  wisdom,  and  intelligence. This argument is of posteriori knowledge, meaning, that knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as most things are  in  science  (evolution)  and  personal  knowledge.  It  is  therefore,  a  deductive  argument: the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. There  are,  indeed,  some  weak-analogy  objections  against  the  teleological  argument.  In  fact,  the Teleological Argument doesn’t provide good evidence  for  the  truth of its  conclusion, because the analogy between the world and machines isn’t very strong.  One  objection  to  this  argument  is  that  the  analogy  between  a  watch  and  the  universe is  too weak  to  support  the inference  to a  designer  of  the  universe,  that  there  are  better  alternative  analogies  available  that  imply  different  views  of  the  universe’s  origins.  Another  objection  is  that  arguments  from  analogy  are  too  limited in  the  kinds  of  conclusion  that  they  can  support, and  so  force  those who  use  them  into  an  anthropomorphism  that  is  inconsistent  with  theism.  A  further  problem is that the principle that ordered complexity implies a designer applies no  more to the universe than it does to God, inviting the question “Who created God?”


What is Gaunilo's objection to the argument?



Don't forget about the age old question of What is GAMETES?

3. State the Cosmological Argument. Explain what is meant by a dependent being  and  a  self-existent  being,  and  explain  how  two  of  the  argument’s  premises  depend on the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

~ The Cosmological Argument is  the argument  that  the existence of  the world or  universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence

of  the universe,  the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and  the only  adequate explanation  of its existence is  that it was created by God. A  simple  run  down of the Cosmological Argument goes as follows – (1) There exist some beings,  (2)  Every  being  that  exists  must  either  be  a  dependent  being  or  a  self-existent  being, (3) It cannot be the case that every being that exists is a dependent being, &  (4) Therefore, there exists a self-existent being. A dependent being (DB) is a thing  whose existence is due to the activity of another being (or beings). A self-existent  being (SB), on the other hand, is a thing whose existence is due to its own nature,  whose existence follows from its essence. There is a principle that is closely tied in  with  the  Cosmological  Argument  and  that  is  called  The  Principle  of  Sufficient  Reason (PSR): for everything, there must be a sufficient reason, a reason why it is  rather  than  is  not. Two  of  the  Cosmological  Argument  premises  depend  on  the  Principle  of  Sufficient  Reason. The  first  premise  is  part  ‘a’  of  PSR,  or  PSRa:  for  every being that exists, there must be an explanation why it exists rather than not. At  first  glance,  the  first  premise  might  appear  to  be  an  obvious  or  even  trivial  truth. But it is neither obvious nor trivial. And if it appears to be obvious or trivial,  we must be confusing the idea of a self-existent being with the idea of a being that is not a dependent being. That leads into the second premise that depends on The  Principal  of  Sufficient  Reason  – part  ‘b’  of  PSR,  or  PSRb:  for  every  positive  fact,  there must be a sufficient reason, an explanation of why it is so rather than not so.  According  to  the second premise, not every being  that exists can be a dependent  being,  that  is,  can  have  the  explanation  of  its  existence  in  some  other  being  or  beings.  Presumably,  the  proponent  of  the  argument  thinks  there  is  something  fundamentally wrong with the idea that every being that exists is dependent, that  each existing being was caused by some other being which in turn was causes by  some other being, and so on. We also discuss several other topics like what is Current Account Balance?

4. State the Principle of Sufficient Reason, both in its general form and in the more  specific parts ‘a’ and ‘b’. Describe two strategies for supporting the general form  of the principle, and describe an objection to each of these strategies.

~ The Principle of Sufficient Reason states that nothing is without reason. It states  that for everything, there must be a sufficient reason, a reason why it is rather than  is  not.  It  is  a  powerful  and  controversial  philosophical  principle  stipulating  that  everything must have a reason or cause.  Anselm accepted this as a basic principle  but by the 18th century, it has been more fully elaborated and received the name of  “The Principle of Sufficient Reason.” This principle plays such an important role in  justifying the premises of the Cosmological argument. The two premises that have  to  do with  the  Cosmological argument  rely  heavily  on The  Principle  of Sufficient  Reason.  The  first  premise is  part  ‘a’  of  PSR,  or  PSRa:  for  every  being  that  exists,  there must be an explanation why it exists rather than not. At first glance, the first  premise  might  appear  to  be  an  obvious  or  even  trivial  truth.  But  it  is  neither  obvious nor trivial. And if it appears to be obvious or trivial, we must be confusing If you want to learn more check out mitosis is what?

the idea  of  a  self-existent  being with  the idea  of  a  being  that is  not  a  dependent  being.  That  leads  into  the  second  premise  that  depends  on  The  Principal  of  Sufficient Reason – part ‘b’ of PSR, or PSRb: for every positive fact, there must be a  sufficient reason, an explanation of why it is so rather than not so. According to the  second premise, not every being that exists can be a dependent being, that is, can  have  the  explanation  of  its  existence  in  some  other  being  or  beings. Gottfried  Wilhelm Leibniz, a philosopher among many other things, was the one who coined  the  term  “The Principle  of Sufficient Reason”.  Leibniz argued  some  strategies  for  supporting  the  general  form  of  the  principle  – one  being  – if  nothing  existed  besides the sorts of things we find in the world, there would be no explanation of  why the things exist. He illustrates this point by giving an example about geometry  books: “Suppose that a geometry book has always existed, one copy always made  different from another.  It is obvious that although we can explain a present copy  of the book from the previous book from which it was copied, this will never lead  us to a complete explanation, no matter how many books back we go, since we can  always  wonder  why  there  have  always  been  such  books,  why  these  books  were  written,  and  why  they  were  written  the  way  they  were.”  Another  strategy  that  supports The Principle of Sufficient Reason is that it is a necessary truth that there  are  things  that  depend  on  other  things  to  exist  in  this  world.  Both  of  these  strategies, however, have things that disprove them, or argue against them. For the  first strategy, Leibniz  thinks  that what goes  for  the geometry books, goes  for  the  world  as  a  whole.  Even if  we  can  explain  one  state  of  the  world in  terms  of  the  preceding  state  of  the  world,  we  lack  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  there  is  a  world at all. For  the second strategy,  the claim that the creator of things explains  the existence of depending  things is neither depending nor necessary, it must be  false. But if it is false, then it looks like the fact that there are depending things that  must  be  explained  by  something  that  is  independent  must  be  false,  and  the  principle  must  have  gone  wrong  somewhere.  Leibniz  would  surely  have  a  hard  time replying to that contradicting argument. Don't forget about the age old question of What is Rhizopus Stolonifer?

5. State Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Explain Kant’s objection to the argument.

~ Anselm’s  Ontological Argument  appears  to  claim  to  be  a  priori  proof  of  God’s  existence. Anselm starts with  the premises  that do not depend on experience  for  their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that  God exists. His aim is to refute the fool who says in his heart that there is no God.  What  Anselm  states  in  his  Ontological  Argument  can  be  paraphrased  into  the  following 9 points: (1) God (the being than which none greater is possible) exists  in the understanding, (2) It is possible for God to exist in reality, (3) If something  exists only in the understanding but could have also existed in reality, they it could  have been greater than it is, (4) Suppose that God exists only in the understanding,  (5)  Then  God  could  have  been  greater  than  He  is,  (6)  Then  God  is  a  being  than  which a greater is possible, (7) Then (absurdly) the being than which none greater

is possible is a being than which a greater is possible, (8) Hence, it is false that God  exists only in  the understanding, (9) Therefore, God exists in reality as well as in  understanding. This argument has the form of a reductio ad absurdum – meaning – is  has  a  method  of  proving  the  falsity  of  a  premise  by  showing  that  its  logical  consequence  is  absurd  or  contradictory. Immanuel  Kant  was  a  German  philosopher who is considered the central figure of modern philosophy. The most  famous  objection  to  the  Ontological  Argument  is  given  in  Kant’s  dictum  that  existence is  not  a  real  predicate.   His  objection  has  historical  significance  and is  often cited by contemporary philosophers as good reason to reject the Ontological  Argument.  Kant  said:  “If  I  take  the  subject  (God)  with  all  its  predicates  (omnipotence being one), and say: God is, or There is a God, I add no new predicate  to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with  all its predicates.” According to Kant, the confusion lies in the fact that existence is  not a predicate. When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there  is  a  God  and  he  possesses  the  property  of  existence.  If  that  were  the  case,  then  when  people assert  that God  does  not exist  they would  be  saying  that  there is a  God and he lacks  the property of existence, i.e.  they would be both affirming and  denying God’s existence. Kant suggests  that  to say  that something exists is  to sat  that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world. For Kant, existence is not  a  matter  of  a  thing  possessing  a  property  i.e.  existence.  Existence  is  a  concept  corresponding to something in the world.

6. State  Anselm’s  Ontological  Argument.  Explain  Gaunilo’s  objection  to  the  argument.

~ Anselm’s  Ontological  Argument  appears  to  claim  to  be  a  priori  proof  of  God’s  existence. Anselm starts with  the premises  that do not depend on experience  for  their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that  God exists. His aim is to refute the fool who says in his heart that there is no God.  What  Anselm  states  in  his  Ontological  Argument  can  be  paraphrased  into  the  following 9 points: (1) God (the being than which none greater is possible) exists  in the understanding, (2) It is possible for God to exist in reality, (3) If something  exists only in the understanding but could have also existed in reality, they it could  have been greater than it is, (4) Suppose that God exists only in the understanding,  (5)  Then  God  could  have  been  greater  than  He  is,  (6)  Then  God  is  a  being  than  which a greater is possible, (7) Then (absurdly) the being than which none greater  is possible is a being than which a greater is possible, (8) Hence, it is false that God  exists only in  the understanding, (9) Therefore, God exists in reality as well as in  understanding. This argument has the form of a reductio ad absurdum – meaning – is  has  a  method  of  proving  the  falsity  of  a  premise  by  showing  that  its  logical  consequence  is  absurd  or  contradictory.  The  earliest  critic  of  the  Ontological  Argument  was  a  contemporary  of  Anselm’s,  the  monk  Gaunilo  of  Marmoutier.  Gaunilo did not identify any specific fault with the argument, but argued that there

must be something wrong with it, because if there is not then we can use its logic  to prove things that we have no reason to believe to be true. For instance, Gaunilo  argued, it is possible to construct an argument with exactly the same  form as the  Ontological Argument,  that  purports  to  prove  the existence  of  the  perfect island:  the perfect island must exist, for if it did not then it would be possible to conceive  of an island greater than that island than which no greater can be conceived, which  is  absurd. The  perfect island,  as  this  argument  goes, is  the island  than  which  no  greater can be conceived, for it could be conceived to exist which would be greater.  Anyone who thinks that the perfect does not exist, then, is confused; the concept of  the perfect island entails that there is such a thing.

Part II: The following question will be on the exam, and you will need to answer it.  Your answer should be about two pages long. It will count 40% of the exam grade.

1. State  the  Argument  from  Evil,  and  explain  the  Free-Will  Defense  that  van  Inwagen presents. Is his defense a satisfactory response to the problem of evil?  Support your judgment with argument.

~ The Argument  from Evil, in brief, states  the  following:  (1) There exists a great  deal of evil, much of it extremely bad, (2) If an all-perfect being existed, such evil  would not exist, (3) Therefore, there does not exist an all-perfect being. There are  two types of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to the misdeeds of  rational beings and natural evil refers to suffering, and the natural phenomena that  cause it. Peter Van  Inwagen, in addition  to  the Argument  from Evil, also presents  the Free-Will Defense which states: 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  will,  God  has  given  us  free  will  so  that  it  is  possible  for  those  greater goods to exist, God cannot both give us free will and ensure we not misuse  it, we do often misuse our free will and the evils that exist result from this misuse  of  our  free  will,  and  lastly  God  is  justified  in  allowing  these  evils  to  exist  – for  without  doing  so  – the  indicated  greater  goods  could  not  exist. Van  Inwagen’s  defense is half  a  satisfactory  response  to  the  problem  of  evil  because it  satisfies  half  of  the  Argument  from  Evil.  It  is  satisfactory  in  the  sense  that  the  defense  justifies  why  moral  evil  occurs,  but  it  does  not  satisfy  why  natural  evil  occurs.  Moral  evil  occurs  when  misdeeds  occur  at  the  hands  of  people  who  have  been  granted free will. Moral evil is not brought about by God, but by free people.  God is  therefore not the author of moral evil, and so is not responsible for it. An example  of this is a murder. If a person truly despises another person, for instance, and has  enough  hate  garnered  towards  them,  it  could  be  enough  to  make  the  person  despising the other to commit a murder and end the other person’s life. Free will  allows  for  people  to  do  such  things  because people  then  have  the  option  of  thinking  whatever  they  want  and  coming  up  with  ideas  whether  they  are

malevolent or not. If people did not have free will, everyone would think the same  way and our will would be in the hands of God (or the creator, in the case that one  doesn’t believe in a divine being). Evil would then not exist in the world. Free will  is a magical thing and it can allow for some great things to happen, but sometimes,  bad things can come from it too. The existence of moral evil is a consequence of the  existence  of  a  greater  good:  free  will. Without  free  will  there  could  be  no moral  goodness; a world without free people would be morally void. The good that is the  existence of free moral people, it is suggested, therefore outweighs the bad that is  the existence of moral evil, and God therefore did well in creating free people even  though he knew some of them would commit moral evils. Now,  this only justifies  moral evil, but now what about natural evil? Things like hurricanes,  flash  floods,  earthquakes, ice ages, and  tornadoes don’t occur because evil people made  them  occur. Those would be some seriously evil people if that were the case. Natural evil  occurs  naturally  – as  the  name  implies.  Maybe  because  that’s  the  way  that  God  intended for it to be? Truly, no one has any idea or knows. But to get to the point,  the free-will defense does not justify natural evils in any way. The fact that humans  on earth were given free will to go about and use it at their own discretion doesn’t  give  them  the  power  to  concoct  some  of  the  most  terrible  natural  disasters  by  mother nature known to man. God (or whoever the creator is) can give us free will  and  not  ensure  that  we  won’t  use  it  incorrectly,  but  humans  are  incapable  of  creating natural evil. Natural evil is simply a thing that occurs to keep the world “in  check,” as some may say. Sometimes, even though it is sad, natural evils wipe away  some of the world’s population to give way to more procreation. If the world were  to  overpopulate,  living  conditions  would be  terrible  and  could  in  turn  create  diseases were the human race could go extinct. It’s all about perspective. But point  blank, the free will defense does not satisfy why natural evils occur.

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here