Philosophy Midterm
Why the free will defense is compatible with the concept of omnipotence
"Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God" An illogical possibility (Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis) A correct understanding of omnipotence: God can perform any action the performance of which is logically consistent, and consistent with God's own nature. (married bachelor, square circle examples)
Dream argument
"Now let us assume that we are asleep and that all these particulars, e.g., that we open our eyes, shake our head, extend our hands, and so on, are but false delusions; and let us reflect that possibly neither our hands nor our whole body are such as they appear to us to be. At the same time, we must at least confess that the things which are represented to us in sleep are like painted representations which can only have been formed as the counterparts of something real and true..." Based on reason not the senses.
Cogito Argument
"So that after having reflected well and carefully examined all things, we must come to the definite conclusion that this proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it."
Aquinas' cosmological argument (two premises and the conclusion)
1. Everything has a cause. 2. A chain of causes cannot stretch back infinitely, for otherwise there could be no way in which any of the causes could come into being. 3. Therefore, there must be a first cause ("unmoved mover"), that is, God, the necessarily existing being.
Cogito Argument (Descartes)
1. I doubt that I exist (e.g., the possibility of the evil genius) 2. If I doubt that I exist, I exist. Therefore, I exist.
The argument from evil (seven premises, one conclusion)
1. Suppose for the sake of argument that God exists. 2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good (from 1 and by the assumption about God). 3. God has the power to prevent all evil. (from 2) 4. God would therefore be aware of evil (even before it occurs). (from 2) 5. God would will that there be no evil. (from 2) 6. Evil exists. 7. Contradiction! So, God is either not omnipotent or not omniscient or not wholly good. Therefore, God does not exist.
Clarke's response to the ICR question (six premises and the conclusion)
1. Suppose for the sake of argument that there is nothing but an infinite causal regression of dependent beings (ICRDB). 2. There must be some explanation of the existence of the entire ICRDB. 3. That explanation can't exist outside of the ICRDB. 4. Nor can that explanation exist inside of the ICRDB. 5. So the ICRDB exists without any explanation at all. 6. But this contradicts Premise 2. 7. Therefore, the supposition in Premise 1 is false.
Gaunilo's objection to St. Anselm's ontological argument (three premises, one conclusion)
1. The GCI has all possible islandly perfections. 2. Existence is a perfection. 3. The GCI has the perfection of existence. Therefore, GCI exists.
Anselm's ontological argument (three premises and the conclusion)
1. The Greatest conceivable being (GCB) has all possible perfections. 2. Existence is a perfection. 3. GCB has the perfection of existence. Therefore, GCB (=God) exists.
What is the definition of a 'necessarily existing being' discussed in class?
A being that is impossible not to exist
Strawman Example
After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying he was surprised that Will hated the country so much that he wants to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending
The name of reasoning for the argument from design and how Paley uses that reasoning for the conclusion that God exists.
Analogical reasoning: the watch = watchmaker : the universe = God
Who developed the ontological argument?
Anselm
Who developed the cosmological argument?
Aquinas
The definition of 'God' and the assumption about the properties of 'God' (this includes the 'necessary condition' of God)
Assumption: God = the most perfect being (the being that has all possible perfections) who has all possible perfections essentially. •Perfections: omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good Necessary conditions of God. X is a necessary condition of Y = If no X, then no Y. (Y only if X)•If a being lacks either omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence, it cannot be God.
"Murder is, by definition, morally wrong. However, the death penalty is just judicial murder, carried out by a judge and the legal system rather than by a lone assailant with a pistol. Hence the death penalty is wrong." This argument is an example of logical fallacies. Why is this argument wrong?
Because calling the death penalty judicial murder is just a roundabout way of presupposing that it is morally wrong.
Which one of the following is the most rational thing to do according to Pascal?
Believe in God.
The most certain, indubitable belief, and how it underlies one's knowledge
Descartes believes that this belief is the foundation of knowledge. I ought no less carefully to withhold my assent from matters which are not entirely certain and indubitable than from those which appear to me manifestly to be false."
ad hominem example
Doctor X argues that smoking is bad for one's health. An investigative reporter sees Doctor X smoking herself. Therefore, Doctor X's argument it wrong.
Names, main ideas, and implications of the three arguments Decartes develops
Dream, evil genius, Cogito
Composition example
Each grain of sand in a dune is small. Therefore, the dune is small.
argument from authority example
Einstein says that P. Therefore, P is true
Valid Argument Example
Elizabeth owns either a Honda or a Saturn. Elizabeth does not own a Honda. Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.
One of premises of the argument from design is that the only possible explanation of complexity and design in the natural world is an intelligent, sentient being (God). What is an alternative explanation discussed in class?
Evolution by natural selection
Which one of the following is not Gaunilo's objection to Anselm's ontological argument?
Evolution by natural selection explains why the nature shows apparent design and complexity.
Which one of the following is a premise of the ontological argument?
Existence is a perfection.
What is David Hume's critique of the cosmological argument?
Explaining the cause of each part of the whole universe is sufficient for (the same as) explaining the cause of the whole.
A valid argument must have a true conclusion.
False
According to Aquinas, if you infer the existence of a watchmaker from a watch, you can infer the existence of God from apparent design and beauty of natural world.
False
According to Hume's Principle, ICRDB needs a cause and that cause cannot exist inside or outside of it.
False
According to the lecture, the argument from design is not valid.
False
The most controversial premise of the cosmological argument is that everything has a cause.
False
The ontological argument is an a posteriori argument.
False
The possibility of Evolution by Natural Selection (ENS) shows that the argument from design might not be valid.
False
Anselm's responses to Gaunilo's objection and a revised ontological argument
GBC and GCI are not comparable because islandly perfections are subjective 1. GCB (God) has all possible perfections. 2. These perfections are qualitative properties that can be well defined. 3.Existence is a perfection. 4. God has the perfection of existence. Therefore, GCB (God) exists.
One response to the problem of evil is "God is giving us a test." What is a problem with this response discussed in class?
God, then, is not all knowing.
Sound argument example
In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote. In those states, some professional athletes are felons. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.
What is a correct analysis of the following argument? "All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, Socrates is a man." (Assume that all premises are true only if the argument is valid.)
Invalid
"If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, I would be rich. I don't own all the gold in Fort Knox. Therefore, I am not rich." What is a correct analysis of this argument?
Invalid argument
Which one of the following is not Hume's critique about the argument from design?
It is possible that something doesn't have a cause.
Which one of the following is an objection to the cosmological argument discussed in class?
It seems that the infinite causal regression of dependent beings is logically possible.
appeal to ignornace
Lack of evidence for truth or falsity of a claim does not prove the truth or falsity of that claim
Valid argument forms
Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Hypothetical Syllogism, Disjunctive Syllogism
appeal to ignorance example
No has proven theism. Therefore, atheism is true. Nor has anyone proven atheism. Therefore, theism is true.
Aquinas' assumptions about his cosmological argument
Nothing can't cause something! (If that there was nothing were true, there would be nothing even now.)± 2. We must stop at some point to explain existence of things. (premise 2)
David Hume's objection to Clarke's argument
Once you've accounted for the existence of each element in a totality, there is no further question of how to account for that totality.
Samuel Clarke defends the cosmological argument by using a unique logical reasoning. What is the form of this reasoning?
Reductio Ad Absurdum
Which one of the following is an example of moral evils?
The Holocaust
The argument from design and its relation to the concept of the perfect being
The argument says that there must be a perfect being because of how complex and beautiful the world is
Beliefs that can survive each of the three arguments
The dream argument is based on the belief of reason
What is David Hume's critique of the argument from design?
The example of the watch-watchmaker is not analogous to the case of the universe-God.
What is the most problematic premise of the argument from design?
The only possible explanation of the complexity and beauty of natural world is a powerful, sentient designer.
Which of the following is not an example of perfections in Anselm's argument?
The perfect quantity
Which one of the following is Anselm's response to Gaunilo's objection to the ontological argument?
The perfections of GCB are not quantitative properties but qualitative properties.
Equivocation example
The soul is immaterial, whatever is immaterial is not important. Therefore, the soul is not important. The meaning of immaterial changes in this argument.
What is the main idea of the free will defense?
The source of moral evil is human free will and not God's will.
Three conditions of knowledge (JTB)
The truth condition, the belief condition and the justification condition
Which one of the following is the most important and controversial premise of Clarke's argument?
There must be some explanation of the existence of the entire ICRDB.
The goal of Descartes' theory of knowledge and how he attempts to achieve the goal.
To establish a firm and permanent edifice of knowledge for the sciences. He attempts to use the method of doubt: "not entirely certain and indubitable" (pyramid example with most certain belief (I exist) at the bottom and sensory beliefs at the top and then dream or evil genius on the side in middle making sensory beliefs false, then come up with a belief that you can be certain of even if you are dreaming ex. beliefs in reasoning also in the middle)
The form of Reductio argument.
To show that a certain claim is false (Clarke's argument against ICR) 1. Suppose for the sake of argument that p (what you want to attach) were true 2. Given the supposition that p is true find absurdity or contradiction 3. Therefore, P is false.
A valid argument might have a false premise.
True
According to the lecture, the argument from design is valid, but it might not be sound.
True
Pascal's Wager is a pragmatic/ prudential justification of God's existence.
True
The Ontological Argument makes no claims based on empirical evidence.
True
Equivocation
When the meaning of a word changes. The soul is immaterial, whatever is immaterial is not important. Therefore, the soul is not important. The meaning of immaterial changes in this argument.
Who constructed the argument from design?
William Paley
What does Hume's Principle imply?
You can explain the whole thing by explaining its compositing parts.
Composition
a mistaken understanding between part and whole
The second premise of the cosmological argument and the ICR question about it (the ICRDB objection to the cosmological argument).
a. A chain of causes cannot stretch back infinitely, for otherwise there could be no way in which any of the causes could come into being. b. We must stop at some point to explain existence of things. c. "Why should we stop at some point to explain the origin of the universe? Why not accept infinite causal regression (ICR)? If ICR is possible, then premise 2 is false. Therefore, Aquinas' cosmological argument is wrong."
How the free will defense solves the problem of moral evil (this includes an assumption about possible worlds and the notion of human freedom and its relation to moral evil and God's power)
a. According to Plantinga, the possibility that we humans are free solve the logical contradiction between God and evil. Adding a premise to the argument from evil: Human beings are free -then, Premise 7 is false. It is not within God's power to bring it about that the free creatures never go wrong.
Three common responses to the problem of evil and their problems (this includes what premised is attacked for soundness).
a. Evil is a privation, just as shadow is the absence of light rather than a thing itself. Evil is not a thing at all. Evil, therefore, does not exist. (premise 6 is false, Augustine) b. God is giving us a test. Through the test, God wants to know how we respond to evil and suffering and whether we are qualified for an eternity in Heaven. No contradiction b/w God and evil. So, Premise 7 is false. c. Things balance out. The ultimate harmony doctrine: a compensating quantity of good somewhere else in space or time, or even outside of space and time. No contradiction b/w God and evil. So, Premise 7 is false. (beating husband analogy)
Invalid argument forms
affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent
William Paley's argument from design is based on an unique reasoning about the watch and the watchmaker. What is the name of this reasoning?
analogical reasoning
An interesting property of Anselm's Ontological Argument is that it:
attempts to derive God's existence from the mere concept of God.
An argument comprises a set of statements. That set of statements can be divided into two: First, there are the premises, and then there is ______________________.
conclusion
The fallacy of assigning two different meanings to the same term in an argument is known as the fallacy of ___________________.
equivocation
What are the main illogical fallacies?
equivocation, composition, ad hominem, strawman, principle of charity, appeal to ignorance, argument from authority
a posteriori
from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data: an a posteriori argument that derives the theory from the evidence. Compare a priori (def. 1). not existing in the mind prior to or independent of experience. (relying on senses or experiences) (cosmological and argument from design)
Argument from Authority
from the premise that an authority figure believes something. We can't validly infer that that belief is true
Soundness
if the argument is valid and has all true premises
Validity
if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true
This argument [If Michael Jordan is a turtle, then you are existing. Michael Jordan is not a turtle. Therefore, you are not existing] is:
invalid
a priori
knowledge, justifications, or arguments that exist independently from experience. Examples include mathematics (e.g. 3 + 2 = 5); tautologies (e.g. "all bachelors are unmarried"); and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs). (without relying on senses or experiences) (ontological)
strawman
misrepresenting or distorting someone's claim or argument so it can be refuted easily.
This argument [If Dallas Cowboys win the Super Bowl, then China is in America. China is not in America. Therefore, Dallas Cowboys do not win the Super Bowl] has the form of:
modus tollens
Two kinds of evil
moral and natural
moral evil example
murder
natural evil example
natural disasters
principle of charity
seeking the strongest possible version of opponent's argument. Interpreting arguments as generously as possible. Don't rely entirely on the critics of a position for information. Seek out the arguments of both sides. Look for arguments written by the actual supporters, not the distortionists.
Evil Genius Argument
some evil genius is controlling what is happening so you cannot use beliefs in reasoning because they could be controlled by the evil genius. The only thing that can beat this argument is I am thinking so I exist.
principle of charity example
someone is listening to an immigrant try to speak his or her language. The immigrant might be a professor in his or her country of origin, but due to still learning the new language, his or hers thoughts might not come across as intended.
Beliefs that are knocked out by each of the three arguments
the Dream Doubt knocks out all beliefs based in the senses.
In a sound argument:
the conclusion is always true.
ad hominem
the quality of an argument doesn't depend upon the arguer's personal life. Rebutting a position someone is defending by pointing out some fact about that person that seems to be in tensions with holding that position
"A critique of the argument from design is that the argument does not necessarily show that an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe exists."
true
What are the three conditions of a good argument?
valid, sound, non-question begging
Non-Question Begging
when the conclusion is not already assumed in the premises
The argument from design (two premises and the conclusion)
· 1. The natural world shows considerable complexity and apparent design. · 2. The only possible explanation of this complexity is that it was produced by intelligent sentient designer. · 3. Therefore, there must be an intelligent sentient designer responsible for the complexity and apparent design in the natural world.
A problem with the second premise of the argument from design (explain the ENS objection)
· The existence of an ENS which is intelligent, but not sentient. This causes premise 2 to be false. Argument is valid but not sound because of premise 2. Evolution is why we have improvements and changes therefore we do not need a perfect being.
David Hume's objection to the argument from design
· The relation between the watchmaker/architect and the watch/house is not analogous to the relation between God and the Universe.
