PHI 107 Midterm
Kant raised a famous objection to the Ontological Argument based on the nature of existence and concepts and their relation. (a) Explain Kant's basic point about the difference between questions about concepts and and questions about existence, and how it is supposed to be an objection to the Ontological Argument. - (b) You can use Zebras and unicorns as example to help explain Kant's, but be sure to also explain how Kant uses it against Anselm. (c) What basic mistake does he say Anselm was making?
(a) "Exists" is not a predicate (not a property). The ontological argument depends on a basic confusion or misunderstanding about the nature of concepts and how they work. (b) the function of "exists" is to indicate that the relevant concept does (or does not) apply to things in reality. "Zebras exist." "Unicorns do not exist." (c) mistake: saying existence is a property of a concept, even if something can exist in the mind and not in reality. Kant says Anselm is treating existence like a predicate.
(a) Explain what is meant by the Foundationalist view of Knowledge. (b) Name at least one philosopher who was a foundationalist and explain what he took to be the foundation. (c) Explain the metaphor that we used to illustrate the Foundationalist view, i.e. what is that metaphor and how are its parts supposed to correspond to the parts of our knowledge.
(a) -promotes the view that all our knowledge promotes the view that all our knowledge must be built upon a sold foundation -there must be some beliefs of which we are certain with no possibility of being wrong, and the rest of the things we know are supported by a solid foundation (b) Cartesian- used the 'castle on a hill' metaphor to support his views -he said that we must start on beliefs that are self-evident and known with certainty (c) metaphor we used to illustrate the foundationalism view is the castle on a rock metaphor -if a house is built on sand it will not last long and can easily crumble; if castle is built on rock it has a solid foundation, it will last, and not crumble, and can only foster more knowledge from it
(a) Explain the Brain the Vat Argument for doubt. (b) How is it like or unlike any of Descartes' arguments for doubt.
(a) -when something is stimulating the brain, images show up -sometimes experiences do not correspond to reality so we can see images that aren't really there (b) descartes argues that all evil beings cannot relate to reality -how can you know that you are not all the time affect by a powerful deceiver? -how can you know your brain is not being stimulated?
The First Cause Argument might be challenged as being Inconsistent. (a) Explain which parts are in conflict, (b) and then explain two ways in which the argument might be modified to avoid the inconsistency. Any response to those modifications?
(a) Premise 1: everything that exists has a cause Premise 7: the first cause was an uncaused cause -thus, if the first cause existed, then according to 1 it must have had a cause, so it could not be uncaused as 7 claims. (b) Premise 1: every event in time has a cause Premise 7: thus no event in time caused E0
(a) Explain what is meant by the "Poker Hand Fallacy" and how it might be used to challenge the "fine-tuning" version of the Design Argument. (b) What reply could the supporter of the argument make? (c) Explain what is meant by the "Anthropic Principle" and how it could be used to counter that reply?
(a) Premise 2 of design argument states that 'when we find such teleological order in human artifacts we know it should be explained by appeal to the intelligence of their human designers.' this translates to: human artifacts should be explained by a creator -counter reply: the idea of natural selection and evolution -counter reply: but then....how did evolution start? it gives no starting point. just because there is fine tuning does not mean it was intentionally finely tuned poker hand fallacy: how unlikely is it that we would be finely tuned? the odds of any poker hand are 1 in any big #, so what are the odds of the fact that we are in a finely tuned universe? little -response: anthropic principle: a particular hand is incredibly unlikely, but getting any hand at all is 100% likely -so... the actual hand we get is a derminant special hand, God exists and finely tuned the universe
(a) Explain what philosophers mean by an "argument". (b) What are the principal parts of an argument and how are they supposed to be related? (c) Explain what is meant by a multi-stage argument. Give an example of one.
(a) a connected series of statements intended to establish a specific proposition (b) premises- the facts or statements that provide evidence and serve as a starting point for the argument conclusion- the ending point, supported by the premises (c) when an extended argument draws many conclusions. ex: 1. Joe voted legally in the Nov 2014 US election 2. the minimum age to vote in the US is 18. 3. therefore Joe was at least 18 in Nov 2014 4. it is now October 2019 5. therefore it is now 4 years and 11 months later 6. therefore Joe is now at least 22 7. the minimum age to legally buy beer in NY is 21 8. therefore Joe can legally buy beer in NY
(a) What is meant by "teleological order"? (b) In what sorts of cases do we find teleological order? Give some examples. (c)In what way might teleological explanations seem to conflict with the normal temporal order of explanation? (d) How might having a designer resolve that apparent time conflict?
(a) a system that is structured to achieve goals or ends, the parts of the system are organized to perform functions that helps to realize some ends or goals for the system; show purpose (b) artifacts (ex: car radiator has the function to cool the engine); biological systems (function of kidneys is to filter blood) (c) reverse the normal temporal order or casual explanation. It is the opposite of the normal temporal order. (d) the idea of the design argument argues the teleological order of the natural world should be explained in the same way by the existence of a "designer of the natural world" and that designer must be God
(a) Explain the difference between Apriori and Aposteriori propositions. (b) Give an example of each, being clear to say which is which, and why.
(a) aposteriori- can only be known to be true based on observation or experience apriori- can be known independently of experience (b) ex. aposteriori- "all dogs bite" , as you can only know that dogs bite if you've had the experience of getting bitten by one, seeing one biting someone, or observing it. ex. apriori- all squares have four sides equal in length, as this makes logical sense
(a) What is the one thing of which Descartes is certain in Meditation II. (b) In class, we discussed three interpretations of Descartes' "Cogito". Briefly explain those three interpretations - 3 bullets OK, but don't just give the name of the interpretation - explain briefly what it involves. (c) What reasons does Descartes give to show that the cogito is supposedly not vulnerable to the 3 doubt arguments he raised in Meditation I? In what way is Descartes cautious regarding what he has (or has not) proved by the cogito - i.e. in what sense is he cautious about the meaning of his conclusion "I exist".
(a) certain he exists (b) interpretations: 1. argument: aims to deductively infer 'I exist' as a conclusion from the premise 'I think' 2. immediate intuition: intuitively obvious truth; as soon as I think, it is obvious and certain to me that I exist 3. self-verifying performance: the very act of thinking 'I exist' guarantees its truth (c) -descartes is cautious regarding what he has proved by the cogito as he is cautious in how people should interpret the phrase 'I exist' does not mean 'I as a human being with a body and past life exist' but it moreover means 'I as a thing that thinks exists'
(a) Explain how a critic might object to premise 5 of the Ontological Argument by challenging the idea that existence is a perfection (b) Can Anslem make any response?
(a) challenger must first ask if existence is perfection. does existing make something greater? there is no obvious answer that it does. (b) respond by saying yes, existence does seem to make something better. it makes it more satisfying, especially if it is something we enjoy.
Mackie considers three solutions to the Problem of Evil that he labels "adequate solutions". (a) What are those three solutions? (b) And why does Mackie consider them adequate.
(a) could give up the claim that God is omnipotent; could give up the claim that God is good; could deny that the world contains evil in one of at least two ways: that evil is an 'illusion' and not real, and argue that evil is only a privation (b) adequate because they involve giving up at least one of the three mutually inconsistent proportions; avoid inconsistency
Explain the two theories of perception known as Direct Realism and Indirect Realism. Be sure to explain the difference between direct awareness and indirect awareness (give an example to illustrate). Explain how that distinction applies to the Direct Realism versus Indirect Realism.
(a) direct realism: humans know that external objects exist and we are directly aware of them in perception. indirect realism: states that we know external objects exist but we are not directly aware of them in perception. we are directly aware only of sensory ideas thus in perception we are indirectly aware of external objects
(a) Must a valid argument have a true conclusion? Why or why not? (b) Must a sound argument have a true conclusion? Why or why not? (c) Can an argument have all true premises as well as a true conclusion and be invalid? Why or why not?
(a) does NOT have to have a true conclusion, but must have a true conclusion only if all of the premises are true (b) yes it is valid and has all true premises. since it is valid, the argument is such that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true (c) yes, an argument can have all true premises as well as a true conclusion and be invalid because the truth of the premise does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion
(a) Explain how inductive and deductive arguments differ. What sort of claim does each type of argument make? And how do those two sorts of claims differ? (b) Give an example of an argument that is deductively invalid, but is nonetheless a good (strong) inductive argument.
(a) for deductive, it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. for inductive, the premises make the conclusion probable. (b) it has rained in Seattle every morning for the past 10 years. therefore, it will rain in Seattle tomorrow morning.
(a) What is meant by "earthly fine-tuning" (b) and what is meant by "cosmic fine tuning"? (c) How are they relevant to the Design Argument for God's existence.
(a) involves the processes of evolution and natural selection. if these process were diff, there would be no life (b) involves the whole universe; the idea that if you change the laws of physics by just a little bit, then there would be no universe no planets and no galaxies (c) things are finely tuned by god for a purpose of human life instead of saying they were merely designed, proving god's existence
Explain what is meant by the following: (a) decisions under uncertainty, (b) the value of a gamble or bet and how it is computed. (c) Compute and give the value of the following gamble (actual example on exam would be different): Gambling on one roll of a normal fair 6-sided die with the following payoffs/costs: Roll 1 or 2 - You win 60 dollars Roll 3 or 4 - You win 120 dollars Roll 5 or 6 - You pay 90 dollars.
(a) practical decisions about what to do when you do not know all the relevant facts; probability (b) equals = the sum of the value of the payoff under each outcome multiplied by the probability of that outcome (c) $60 x (.33) = 19.8 $120 x (.33) = 39.6 $90 x (.33) = 29.7 value of bet = $89.10
Mackie considers various solutions to the problem of Evil that he considers inadequate or fallacious. (a) Explain two of those proposed solutions (b) as well as Mackie reasons for rejecting them.
(a) solution 1: 'good cannot exist without evil' (b) reason inadequate: good needs a contrast; only shows we would not notice good without evil, doesn't show it could not exist (a) solution 2: god cannot stop us from going evil things because he gave us free will (b) god is then not all good; he has no control over what we do so he is not all powerful
We considered an objection against "A Simple Basic Cosmological Argument" that said the argument proved "too much" - i.e. it could be used to prove a conclusion that the theist does not want. (a) Explain that objection, and the various ways that the theist might respond by modifying one of the argument's premises. (b) Explain the "ping pong" on this issue.
(a) the argument proves god exists. theist wants argument to prove western god exists, but you can plug any god into the argument and get other stuff existing not just judo-christian god, so the theist would not want that to end up causing the universe. (b) plug other things that could've caused the universe will end up you can put in any number of inputs and get any number of outputs and so the argument proves too much.
(a) Explain Guanilo's Perfect Island objection to the Ontological Argument. (b) Give a basic statement of the objection, and explain how and why it is supposed to be a challenge to the Ontological Argument. (c) Describe one way in which Anselm or his supporters might reply to the Perfect Island objection.
(a) the ontological argument is analogous to an obviously invalid argument, the perfect island argument, so it must be invalid too (b) the perfect island statement says there is no conceivable 'perfect' island with ideal conditions, it simply cannot exist (c) might reply to the perfect island objection by saying the concept of the perfect island as the 'greatest conceivable island' does not make sense, but the concept of god as the greatest conceivable being does make sense, as islands are finite and god is infinite, so therefore the 2 arguments are not analogous
(a) Explain what a Reduction Ad Absurdum (RAA) argument is. (b) Explain how the Ontological argument counts (RAA) argument.
(a) to prove A, we assume the opposite (not A) and show that Not A leads to a contradiction, either on its own or with other premises that you accept as true (b) -either: god exists or does not exist -assume: god does not exist -IF - question argument and prove it wrong -therefore: 'god does not exist' is incorrect, and god exists
(a) Explain/define what a valid deductive argument is. (b) Explain/define what a sound deductive argument is. (c) Give an example of a sound argument. (d) Give an example of an argument that is valid but unsound.
(a) where the truth of the premises must guarantee the truth of the conclusion without exception (b) an argument that is valid AND all of its premises are true, so the conclusion is automatically true (c) I am 5'6". my roommate is 5'4". therefore, I am taller than my roommate. (d) I am 5.6". I attend Syracuse university. therefore, Donald trump is president. (does not make sense)
Give a basic explanation of the Argument from Hallucination. It is not necessary to state it in explicit numbered form. (a) Explain one objection that might be raised against the Argument from Hallucination.
- there is no external object at all, no external physical object of which you could be immediately aware even in an inaccurate way P 1. In the case of visual hallucination of a F, the person has a visual experience just like the experience she has when she receives an F P 2. In the case of the visual hallucination of F there is no actual external F, indeed there is no external object of any sort present at the relevant location 2 3. The immediate object of the hallucinator's visual awareness is not an actual external F, nor any external object 1,3 4. Since the experiences are the same in the hallucination case and in the normal perceptual case, the immediate object of awareness in the perceptual case also is not the external F, nor any external object 4 5. The immediate object of perceptual experience is an F- like sensory idea or collection of sense data (a) Objection: challenge the inference to 4, deny that hallucinatory experiences are subjectively the same as perceptual experiences
Explain how a critic might challenge premise 1 of the Ontological Argument by questioning the coherence of the idea of God.
-by questioning the coherence of the idea of god by asking does the notion of the 'greatest possible being' make sense? god is seen as an all powerful being but can that actually exist? there can be no greatest whole number, so why can there by a greatest whole being?
Explain Leibniz's reply to the Best Possible Worlds version of the Argument from Evil.
-denies the validity of the inference from 4,5 to 6. -even though the actual world contains evil, it is nonetheless the best of all possible worlds -created beings are by their very nature limited and imperfect, and evil is just perfection -need to judge the totality of the world and its overall net balance of good minus evil -the best world is one in which the created beings have free will including the freedom to do evil
(a) Give a basic explanation of the Argument from Perceptual Relativity. It is not necessary to state it in explicit numbered form. (b) Explain one objection that might be raised against the Argument from Perceptual Relativity.
-how things appear changes with perspective P 1. As I move around the room, changing my perspective on the table, the immediate object of my visual awareness changes P 2. The external physical table does not change as I move around the room 1,2 3. The external physical table is not the immediate object of my visual experience 4. The immediate object of my visual experience is an inner sensory idea or collection of sense data (b) Objection: the direct object of my perceptual awareness is a more complex external object- it is not just the table, rather it is the table as viewed from a specific angle, that does change- not a sensory idea
Some people appeal to Miracles as evidence in support of God's existence. Explain why miracles might provide such evidence. Explain the criticism of that reasoning given by Simon Blackburn (textbook & lecture).
-if miracles occur, they are events that fall outside of the laws of nature and there must be some special explanation for them -best explanation of such unnatural events would be that they are acts of god since god would not be limited by the laws of nature
What four reasons does John Locke give for trusting the senses as a source of knowledge about the external world. (Optional: Give one objection that could be raised against Locke's answer.
-inter sensory agreement -involuntary nature of sensation -pain and pleasure associated in regular ways with the senses -senses meet our practical needs
Give a basic explanation of the relation between true belief & knowledge. What is the difference between them. What more is required for knowledge. Give an example to illustrate.
-knowledge requires true belief but true belief by itself is not knowledge -true belief is necessary for knowledge but it is not sufficient for it -if you believe something by chance or on the basis of no evidence, then you technically do not have knowledge even if your belief turns out to be true -knowledge is not based on how strongly you believe something -knowledge is more powerful than true belief -if you get something right by accident it does not mean it is knowledge
Give a basic explanation of the Argument from Illusion. It is not necessary to state it in explicit numbered form. (a) Explain one objection that might be raised against the Argument from Illusion.
-make things appear to be different than they are P 1. When I look at the stick in water, the immediate object of my visual awareness is bent P 2. The external physical stick is not bent 1,2 3. The external physical stick is not the immediate object of my visual awareness 1,3 4. The immediate object of my visual awareness is an inner sensory idea or collection of sense data that really is bent (a) Objection: the object of your immediate awareness is really the external object- it just seems to you to have a property it does not in fact have
Give a clear explanation of Pascal's Wager Argument for believing in God. Be sure to include a matrix showing the costs/payoffs under the different options and outcomes of the gamble.
-you can either believe or not believe in God -betting on not believing is either going to give you hell or a tiny benefit, but betting in believing that God exists gives you heaven, or if God ends up not existing, a minimal cost -if God does exist, there is a much larger benefit/loss than if he doesn't so you have the most benefit if you believe god exists
We considered at least 5 objections that could be raised against Pascal's Wager Argument. State and explain at least three of those objections. Explain what possible replies Pascal might make to these objections?
1. One cannot just choose to believe in God on the practical basis of the wager- belief is not under our voluntary control -Pascal's reply: he is not advocating cynical or pretend belief in god. he says one should act in ways that over time will produce sincere belief in God (participate in the activities of a devout religious life) 2. Are the costs of believing in God if God does not exist higher than Pascal claims? One has only one life and if one lives it based on a false fundamental belief one has given up a lot -reply: the infinity of the costs and payoffs on the god exists side of the best makes any higher costs or benefits on the god doesn't exist side irrelevant 3. Maybe the probability of god's existence is zero. if so, the infinite payoffs on the god exists side do not matter, zero x infinity = zero reply: god may be unlikely but not impossible
Give a statement of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format
1. P- God is a being which no greater being can be conceived 2. P- God exists in the mind 3. Assume- God exists only in the mind, but not in reality 4. C- then, we can conceive of a being just like God but which also exists in reality 5. P- existence is a perfection, if 2 things are alike in all respects except the first exists in reality and the 2nd does not, then the first is greater than the 2nd 6. C- we can conceive of a being greater than god 7. C- we can conceive of a being greater than that being which no greater being can be conceived CONTRADICTION 8. RAA7- thus, we reject the atheist assumption that god exists only in the mind but not in reality 9. therefore, god exists in reality
(a) Give a statement of what we called "A Simple Basic Cosmological Argument" for God's Existence in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format. (b) Give objections against two premises one might raise against that Simple Cosmological Argument. Explain both of them.
1. P- universe exists 2. P- whatever exists must have a cause 3. C- the universe has a cause 4. P- only god could cause a universe 5. C- if the universe has a cause, then god exists 6. C- god exists (b) 1- against premise 2; challenge claim that must every event have a cause? 2- against premise 4; challenge the idea that god is the only thing that could create a universe
One possible argument for the existence of God appeals to the fact that most people in all times of history and many different cultures naturally form a belief in God. We considered 3 possible explanations of that fact - one given William Kelly (in textbook reading & lecture) and two others given in lecture. Explain those three possible explanations.
1. Pascal's Wager -Pascal concludes that even if the existence of god was only 1% likely and the nonexistence of god was 99% likely, belief in god would still be the better bet because there is more value from the outcome 2. Kelly's argument -Kelly claims that it is reasonable to believe that god has placed in us a cognitive faculty that produces belief in god without evidence or argument -claims that out beliefs must stem from things we believe without evidence or argument or else we would not believe them -says a belief in god is more like a belief another people than like belief in a scientific theory 3. Miracles -if miracles occur, they are events that fall outside of the laws of nature and there must be some special explanation for them -best explanation of such unnatural events would be that they are acts of god since god would not be limited by the laws of nature
In lecture we discussed two different views of miracles, two different views of what is involved in what people experience as miracles. Explain those two views and give an example to illustrate each (e.g. crossing the Red Sea).
1. Supernatural violations of nature -Moses and the parting of the Red Sea 2. God working through nature -wind & tides align to cross the sea of reeds
The Teleological/Design Argument appeals to the case of artifact design (e.g. the design of a watch) to argue by analogy that the best explanation of natural teleological features (such as the human eye which is so well organized to fulfill the function of sight) is to appeal to the existence of a intelligent designer as well. State and explain two objections that one might raise against that inductive reasoning - i.e., two objections against the inductive inference from 1,2,3| to 4 in the argument as given in lecture.
1. dispute the analogy: ordinary artifacts and the natural world are far too different to generalize or infer anything about the cause of the latter from the cause of the former 2. argue that the existence of an intelligent designer is not the best hypothesis- for explaining the teleological order of biological systems
In class (9/19) we discussed two main types of reasons one might have for believing something. What were those two different sorts of reasons, and give an example to illustrate each.
1. evidential reasons: straight facts 2. non-evidential reasons: may be practical reasons; being optimistic might motivate you and enhance your chance of success even if the pessimist has a more accurate estimate of how likely success really is (ex: going to interview believing you are going to do well)
In the "Value of Philosophy" Bertrand Russell gives 2 main reasons to study philosophy, i.e. he describes two ways in which doing so has value. Explain those two reasons. i.e. those two ways he says it has value.
1. opens your imagination 2. allows us to transcend the limits of our finite existence
Explain two possible objections against premises in the First Cause Argument for God's Existence. Which premise does the objection challenge, and explain what reason it gives to attack the relevant premise.
1. you can challenge premise 1 by asking 'must every event have a cause?' do some events occur spontaneously? does every single daily event in the universe need to have a cause? 2. challenge premise 9 why asking 'if there is an uncaused cause, why does it have to be god?' what about the Big Bang theory, or other alternatives from science/physics? it does not directly lead to god.
Give a statement of Descartes' Evil Demon/All Powerful Deceiver Argument in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format. (b) Which beliefs does the argument call into doubt? (c) And which, if any, does it not call into doubt? (OK to paraphrase it in your own words, but it should include all the needed steps.)
P 1. Either I am the product of an all knowing and all powerful creator or I am not P 2. If I am the product of an all knowing and all powerful creator, then he has the power to have made me so that things seem absolutely certain to me even though they are false P 3. If I am not the product of an all knowing and all powerful creator then I am the product of imperfect being who may have made me defectively so that things seem absolutely certain to me even though they are false 1,2,3 4. Thus it is possible that even those things that seem absolutely certain to me are in fact false 4 5. Thus even those beliefs which seem most certain to me are open to doubt (b) sitting in a chair, believing all false things, if I build foundation on all false things
(a) Give a statement of the Contingency version of the Cosmological Argument for God's Existence in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format. (b) Explain two objections that could be raised against the Contingency version.
P 1. Every being is either a dependent being or a self-existent being P 2. Not every being can be a dependent being 3. A self-existent being exists P 4. Only god can be a self-existent being 5. God exists (b) Premise 1: not Cleary true because there is a third possible category: a being explained by nothing Premise 4: asking "is god the only possible self-existent being?" even if there is a self-existent being, why does it have to be god?
Give a statement of the First Cause version of the Cosmological Argument for God's Existence in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format.
P 1. Every event has a cause P 2. an event, E, is happening now C from 1,2,3. there was an event that caused E, and an event that caused the event before E, and so on P 4. there cannot be an infinite regress of causes C from 3,4,5. thus, there was a first event, E0, that cause the series C from 5,6. since E0 began the series, there was no event before E0 that caused E0 C from 6,7. thus, the first caused E0 was an uncaused cause P 8. if there is an uncaused cause, it must be god C from 7,8,9. god exists
Give a statement of the Best Possible World version of the Argument from Evil against God's Existence in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format.
P 1. If God is omnipotent then he has the power to create the best of all possible worlds P 2. If God is perfectly good he would create the best world that he can 1,2 3. If God is omnipotent and good, he would create the best all possible worlds P 4. The actual world contains both moral evil and natural evil P 5. There are possible worlds without evil or at least with much less evil 4,5 6. The actual world is not the best of all possible worlds 6 7. God did not create the best of all possible worlds 3,7 8. God is not both omnipotent and good
Give a statement of Mackie-style Argument from Evil against God's Existence in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format.
P 1. If a thing/being is omnipotent then there are no limits on what it can do. P 2. Good is opposed to evil in such a way that a good thing eliminates evil as much as it can 1,2 3. A good omnipotent thing/being eliminates evil completely P 4. The world contains evil 3,4 5. There is no good omnipotent being P 6. According to traditional theism, God is both good and omnipotent 5,6 7. There is no God of the sort traditional theism claims
Give a basic explanation of the Argument from the Shortened Causal Chain. It is not necessary to state it in explicit numbered form. (a) Explain one objection/reply that might be raised against the Argument from the Shortened Causal Chain.
P 1. If we stimulate the optic nerve in the right way with an electrode, we can produce in the brain an event just like the event that is produced when one looks at an apple tree with one's eyes open in good light P 2. However, in such a case there is no external apple tree present that could be direct object of one's awareness 1,2 3. The immediate of one's awareness in such a case cannot be an external apple tree P 4. The events that take place in my brain in the normal case of looking at an apple tree are the same as in the shortened casual chain since the intermediate cause is the same 3,4 5. What I am immediately aware of in the normal case is not the external apple tree, but merely a sensory idea in my mind/brain (a) Objection: you can treat this argument like the hallucination argument and claim that the immediate object of awareness is external- nit is the empty region of space that one incorrectly represents as containing an F
Give a statement of the Teleological/Design Argument for God's Existence in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format.
P 1. In the world we find many natural phenomena that exhibit teleological order of a highly complex and efficient sort P 2. When we find such teleological order in human artifacts we know it should be explained by appeal to the intelligence of their human designers P 3. Natural phenomena are not the result of human design 1,2,3 4. Natural phenomena that exhibit teleological order should be explained by appeal to the action of a non-human intelligent designer 1,4 5. There is a non-human intelligent designer of natural phenomena P 6. If there is a non-human intelligent designer of natural phenomena, then it must be god 6 7. god exists
(a) Give a statement of Descartes' argument for doubt from the Unreliability of the Senses in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format. (b) Which beliefs does the argument call into doubt? (c) And which does it not call into doubt? (OK to paraphrase it in your own words, but it should include all the needed steps.)
P 1. My senses sometimes deceive me P 2. I should never completely trust anything that has deceived me in the past 1,2 3. I should never completely trust my senses 4. Any beliefs that based on my sense are to some degree doubtful (b) calls into doubt beliefs based on senses (c) doesn't call into doubt your judgement
Give a basic explanation of the Time-lag Argument. It is not necessary to state it in explicit numbered form. (a) Explain one objection that might be raised against the Time-lag Argument.
P 1. When a perceiver sees an event x, there is a non-zero interval of time between the occurrence of x at time T1 and S's awareness of x at T2 P 2. It is possible that during that interval that x has ceased to exist and thus does not exist at T2 P 3. The immediate object of the perceiver's awareness must exist at the moment she is aware of it 1,2,3 4. The immediate object of the perceiver's awareness is not the external x 4 5. The object of immediate awareness in perception is some sensory idea
(a) Give a statement of Descartes' Dream Argument in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format. (b) Which beliefs does the argument call into doubt? (c) And which does it not call into doubt.
P 1. the fact that it seems to me that I am sitting here now would be certain evidence that I am sitting here only if I had such experiences only when I really am sitting here P 2. In the past it has seemed to me that I was sitting by the fire and talking when I was actually asleep and dreaming 1,2 3. Thus my experiences are not certain evidence that I am sitting here 3 4. Thus even my beliefs about seemingly obvious present sensory facts are to some degree open to doubt (b) his grip on reality (dreams) (c) his belief that he is here
State and explain two objections that might be raised against premises in the Teleological/Design Argument for God's Existence. What is the reason against the premise? Any response?
Premise 2: "when we find such teleological order in human artifacts we know it should be explained by appeal to the intelligence of their human designers." challenge this by saying it is true but not always true. sometimes adaptive artifacts can result from simple trial and error rather than from intelligent design. Premise 1: "in the world we find many natural phenomena that exhibit teleological order of a highly complex and efficient sort." challenge it by saying it seems plausible in the biological case. biological organisms do seem to show teleological order- they seem to be organized in terms of parts that perform functions to achieve goals and purposes
