2nd Exam Flashcards
Define contingent, Necessary, Possible, and Impossible
Contingent: thing is something that either exists (like a penguin) or doesn’t exist (like a lightsaber), yet could have been ptherwise. It could have (and even might) shown up on theee other list.
Necessary: thing is something that must always exist, i.e. is could never show up in the Contingent list.
Possible: thing is something that is either Coningent or necessary.
Impossible: a thing is something that could never exist (Round square, married bachler)
What is the difference between existence in reality, and existence in the understanding for Anselm? What about existence ONLY in the understanding?
- A thing is conceived when the word signifying it is conceived.
- A thing is conceived when the very entity, which the object is, is understood.
“For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.”
Explain the premises in Anselm’s argument:
DEF: God is the being than which none greater can be conceived.
1. God exists in the understanding.
2. God can be conceived to exist in reality.
3. If something exists only in the understanding, and can be conceived to exist in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.
4. Supoose God exists only in the understanding.
5. Hence God might have been greater than he is.
6. Thus the being than which none greater can be conceived is a being that which a greater can be conceived.
7. It is false that God exists only in the understanding.
8. Therefore God exists in reality as well as in the understanding.
What is the Extreme Postition? Is it a good objection to Anselm’s argument?
The Extreme postition claims that no concepts apply to God. It is not a good postition, because it can not be proven without using concepts.
(1. God transcends human experience; we cannot observe or in any other way experience God as He is.
2. Therefore, our (human) concepts do not apply to God.
3. Therefore, we cannot (logically) prove the existence of God.)
Explain Gaunilo’s Perfection Island Objection. What is Anselm’s main response to it?
Gaunilo used the same agrument, but replaced God with a perfect Island, which he calls Pyeland. Anselm’s response is that Gaunilo missunderstood how the argument was to be used. Anslem’s argument is a proof as opposded to a formal. Proofs have one use, while many things can be plugged into formals. Anslem also says Gaunilo confused limit cases with limit simpliciters.
It was argued in class that Gaunilo confuses limit cases with limit simpliciters. Explain. How soes this help Anselm’s position?
Limit simplicter differs merely in degree. The limit simplicter of an F is and F/ “God is the being which is greater than all”
Limit case differs absolutely from that of which it is a limit case, the limit case of an F is decidedly not an F. “God if the being than which none greater can be conceived.
Gaunilo’s first premise now appears incoherent.
Explain the method of Abductive inference. What are the key facters involved in evaluating an abductive inference?
Abductive inference, or inferenct to the best explanation, are drawn from certain types of claims, called explanation. Abductive reasoning attempts to justify an explanation for the existence or nature of some thing or state of affairs.
They make theories, because the conclusions go beyond the information involved.
What is the difference between an aprior and an aposteriori argument?
A priori: uses logical principles alone.
A posteriori: uses principles justified by observation or experience.
Craig offers both philosphical and scientific reasons for Premise one: “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” What are they?
Craig argues that a being’s ecistence cannot be explained by nothing. To claim that it did would be worse then magic, because it takes out the magication and the hat that the rabbit comes out of. Our experince also does not support stuff happening without cause.
Craig explains the scientific reasons behind the Big Bang, explain
The universe is expanding, which points to the universe having a finite starting point
What is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem?
The BGV theroem shows that time “cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past.”
How does Craig use BGV in his argument?
It supports the premis that says that the universe had a beganing.
How does Entropy help defend P2 of the Kalam argument?
Entropy- lossing energy unless some is added from an external source. If the univerise were infinte, then why has it not run out of energy yet? It seems more likely that the univerise has a beganing, supporting P2 of the Kalam argument
Why does Craig believe that there cannot be an infinite series of past moments?
Craig used the expample of Hilbert’s hotel, which is a hypothical hotel with infinte rooms. All the rooms are full, but a geust comes in asking for one, so the owner just moves everyone up a room. The same thing can happen if an infinte number of new guests arive.
Craig also uses the example of counting, if someone where to count up to infinity, they would have to start with negitive infinitive. Even if that were possible, and the person got to the end, why did they get to the end on the day they did and not the day before?
If the Kalam argument if correct, then what kinds of features must the cause of the universe have?
The cause itself must be uncaused, it must transcend space and time, be changeless, inmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal
What does it mean to say that the universe is “fine-tuned” according to Collins?
The minimal conditions of the universe necessary for sustaining life.
Craig offers both Phiosophical and scientific reasons for P1: whatever begins to exist has a cause. What are they?
Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that it can is worse then magic
The big bang is a scientific reason
What does it mean to say that “the existence of fine-tuning is very improbable under atheism?”
The Prime Principle of confirmation means that obercations can be used to support a hypotheses when choosing between two. To say that fine tuning is improbable under atheism is to say our obersvations don’t support it.
Does Collins think that it is rational to believe that all cosmoic possibilities are equally probable/improbable? Why or why not?
No. See Mercheant’s thumb principle
What is the Merchant’s Thumb Priniciple? How is it relevant to Collins’ argument?
The Merchant’s Thumb referes to a hypthictial sceniro where a merchant uses his thumb to hide a hole from a costumer. When asked why he did that, he responded “well my thumb had to go somewhere, it just happened to cover the hole.” No one would believe that, even less buy something from him after that poor exuse!
“If a state of affairs fpr which there is no known explanation suggests a “tidy” explanation, then it is not reasonable to contend that the state of affairs requires no explanation.”
What is the Anthropic Prinicple? Is it a good objection to the Fine-Tuning Argument?
- We exist
- Fine-tuning is necessary in order for life to occur.
(If there is life, then the universe is fine-tuned) - Thus the universe is fine-tuned… big whoop
it is not a good argument, see merchant’s thumb, and the firing squad analogy.
Give three reasons why Collins claims the Many Universes Hypothesis is week
- The hypothesis is itself without natural (scientific) evidence. (dinosaur skeptic, merchents thumb)
- The Many universes generator itself seems in need of design– so this theory just pushes the question of design one step back.
- The hypothesis is weakened by the fact that the generator would have to not only create universes, but must randomly create the laws of physics themselves.
