Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Metaphysics of God > Existence of God > Flashcards

Existence of God Flashcards

1
Q

put simply what is anselms ontological argument

A
  • trying to conceive of a god that doesnt exist is self-contradictory
  • the concept of god is a coherent one
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

outline anselms argment

A

p1- god is the greatest possible being
p2- it is greater to exist in the understadning of reality rather than in understandong alone
c1- therefore the greatest possibel bein god must exist in the understanding of reality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what is gaunilo’s perfect table example to the argument

A
  • anselsm argument is invalid and can be used to justify absrd conclusions
  • we can conceive of the greatest possible island
    -and because it is greater to exist in reality and understanding as opposed to just understanding alone
  • the greatest conceivable island must exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

how does anselm respond to gaunilo

A
  • says that it is a disanalogy
  • as god is a unique case
  • as he has exiswtence built into his defintion
  • you have to add “perfect” to the island, whereas he is not adding anything to god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

put simply how does anselm respond to gaunilo

A

island have no intrinsic maxima
- there is nothing maximal built into an iasland
- whereas in understanding the concept f god coherently, we also understand him to be the greatest conceivable being

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what is gaunilo’s other objection (whihc anselm fails to defeat)

A
  • if somehing does not exist it is not great at all
  • we are thinking of how great this being would be if it existed
  • this does not show that it exists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

how do aquinas critique anselm

A
  • anselm thinks that “god exists” is self-evident
  • yet we do not know the essence of god
  • so we cant just apriori our way to god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

formally outline descartes onological argument

A

p1- i have an idea of god, that is to say, of a perfect being
p2- a perfect being must have all the perfections
p3- existence is a perfection
c1- therefore god exists

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

why do empiricists dislike ontologival arguments

A
  • as the concluison determines nothing that the premises dont already tell us
  • they are just relations between concepts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

humes criticims on the ontological argument

A
  • the truth of an objects existence can only be verified aposteriori because its a fact about the world
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

humes distinctly conceive critiscims

A
  • if we can distinctly conceive of an objects existence than conceiving of its non-existence os not contradtocty in terms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what is the difference between humes fork and ayer’s verification principle

A
  • humes fork claims about the knowablility of tings whereas the verification princcple focuses on the meaningsullness of them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

how would descartes potentially repwsond to hume’s ciriticsms

A
  • the synthetic apriori
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

how does ayer critique the ontological arguments

A
  • apriori arguments just deduce more tautologies
  • only clarifies defintions it does not tell us antyhing about the world
  • thus a set of tautologies ( an apriori deductive argument) only more tautoligies can be deduced
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

how does kant object to the ontological arguments

A
  • existence is not a predicate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

formally outline Kant’s “existence is not a preicate argument”

A

p1- if “god does not exist” is a contradiction then “god exists” is an analytic truth
p2- if “god exists” is an analytic truth, then existence is part of the concept of god
P3- eixstence is not a predicate, (something that can be added to a concept)
c1- therefore existence in not part of the concpet of god
c2- therefore “god exists” is not an analytic truth
c3- therefore we cannot deduce the existence of god from the concept of god
c4- therefore ontological arguments cannto prove that god exists

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what is the aim of “existence is not a predicate” in defeating ontological arguments

A
  • to show that we cannot deduce the existence of god from the concept of god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

put simply what is kants argument

A
  • that if existence cannot change the propoerties than it is not intrinsic
  • existence cannot be the property of a thing so therefore it cannot be a necessary property of the thiung
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what are the two different claims that anselm makes according to malcolm

A
  • “the greatest possible being, God, must exist in the understadning and in reality”
  • “god cannot be conceived not to exist”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

how does malcolm respond to gaunilo’s perfect island objection

A
  • a perfect island can be conceived not to exist because its existence depends on other things (it exists contingently)
  • whereas god cannot be conceived to not exist because his existence cannot depend on anything else, ontological indepednece (so therefore he exists necessarily )
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

formally outline malcolms ontological argument

A

p1- god cannot come into existence
c1- so, if god does not exist then his existence is logically impossible
p2- if god does eixst, then his existence is logically necessary
p3- either gods existence if logically impossible or logially neceassry
p4- because gods existence is not self contradictory gods existence is not logically impossible
c2- therefore gods existence is logically necessary
c3- therefore god exists

22
Q

what is the problem with p2 of malcoms ontological argument

A
  • “if god does exits, then nothing causedd him to eixst” is not the same as saying that god’s existence is logicallly necessary
  • conflates a bit, it is not that it is a logical necessity but rather an ONTOLOGICAL NECESSITY
23
Q

what kind of arguments are teleological arguments

A
  • aposteriori and inductive
  • as the premises come from experince and it is inductive as it is likely to be the case because of our experiences of the world
24
Q

formally outline aquinas’s design argument

A

p1- things that lack intelligence have an endd purpose
p2- things that lack intelligence cannot move towards their end unless directed by an iintelligent being
p3- an arrow, for example cannot direct itself towards its target, but it needs an archer to direct it
c1- by analogy there must be some intelligent being which directs all unintelligent natural things to their end. this is god.

25
Q

what is a direct criticism to aquinas’ design argument

A
  • P2
  • question-beggy is this not excatly what the argument is trying to prove
  • MORE IMPORTANTLY, a tree doesn’t direction to grow
  • therefore the claim that some intelligent being diretcly shaped the natural world is not supported by our observation of it
26
Q

formally outline hume’s (paraody) design argument

A

p1- the world is like one big machine composed of many smaller parts that work together in a perfect way
p2- the intricisy and precision of parts in the machine is much like human machines
p3- following the rules of analogy like effects are caused by like causes, therefore if it seems like a human made it whatever made it must have human like qualities
c1- we have a god that has scaled up version of human intelligence

27
Q

why is hume so against teleological arguments

A
  • strong empiricist
  • think we simply lack enough experience of the world to understand all the orginas and causes of things
  • he doubts whether we can truly infer caussality at all
  • as you cannot observe a necessary connection between two events
28
Q

in what two ways does hume find issues with the teleological arguments

A
  • argument from analogy is weak
  • relies on the assumption that like effects have like causes but are these two things even like at all ?? or are the similarities simply strategically picked
29
Q

what does hume agreee with about the teleological argument

A
  • admist the intricrate arranegement of things in the world is impressive and abviously complexly designed watches did not just suddnely appear but he says it doesnt then necessarily follow that the exietnence of these was because of the presence of amind
30
Q

what does hume say about the cause and effect nature of the teleological argument and how this can or cannot contribute to our understsanding of god

A
  • whenever we infer cause from effect we should only attribte properties to the cause that are required to prduce the effect
  • in the case of nature all we can infer about the designer is that there is one
  • sp even if the arguemnst were successfuloo in showing that there is a desgner we still cannot reach any useful conclusions about the designer
31
Q

why does hume claim that we cannot know that like causes produce like effects

A
  • as it fails humes fork
  • it is not a relation of ideas as we cannot know it apriori as it is not true by the defintions of the words
  • not a matter of fact as we cannot know it from experience
32
Q

what are 5 objections hume makes towards using arguments from analogy

A
  • dsianalogy
  • cannot infer characteristics of the designer
  • single cause of inference is invalid
  • can only infer characteristics suffiecient to explain effect
  • disarming the necessary metaphysical principles
33
Q

what are the three problems hume points out to comapring the world to a machine

A
  • like complex machines the wrold may have been made by a team of designers challenging the montheistic attitudes towards god
  • the designer must fully resemble a human: be foolish morally weak (this is not how we understadn god to be)
  • like other machines this world may be the final attempt meaning that god is not necessarily omnipoetngt but rather brely competent and using a trial and error method
34
Q

why is to compare the world to a machine such a weak analogy

A
  • more dissimilarities than actaul similarities
  • makes more sense to comapre the world to a vegeatble
  • an analgoy is weak when the things being compared are dissimilar
35
Q

explain hume’s objetion that the design argument fails because it is a unique case

A
  • he is a true empiricist and therefore we can never experience casuation but rather the constant conjunction of one event causing another
  • we can just infer that they caused eachother becaus eit is what normally happens we cannot say that this is necessarily the case
  • the creation of the universee was a unique event and we only have experience of this one universe
  • therefore we cannot infer a causal relationship from this one instance
36
Q

put simply what is the unique case objection that hume raises

A
  • we have no experience of world building as this is the only world building we know
37
Q

formally outline payley’s watch argument

A

p1- anythinh that has parts organised to serve a purpose is designed
p2- nature contains things which have parts organised to serve a prupose
c1- therefore, nature contains things which are designed
p3- design can only be explained in terms of a designer
p4- a designer must be or have a mind and be distinct from what is designed
c2- therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature
c3- therefore such a mind (god) exitst

38
Q

why do some philosophers argue that payle’s argument is not an argument from analogy

A
  • rather the argument is showing how we can make an inference based on particular features of design from objects like a watch and that we can make the sam einferences when we look at the world
39
Q

put simply what is humes objection from spacial disorder

A
  • cannot infer a designer from the perfections and structure of the universe as the universe is fillled with chaos and imperfection
40
Q

formally outline humes objection from spaicial order

A

p1- design is infered rom the orderliness an funtionality of nature
p2- yet some vast areas of space are evidently unorgainsed and not all parts of space are optimised to fulfill their purpose
c1- thereforre there are too many design flaws to infer that the designer of the world is a supremely powerful good and competnt god.

41
Q

how does payley repesond to the design argumnent

A
  • what is important is not th perfect functionality of nature but rather the evidence of its purpose
42
Q

what is kants objection to the design argument

A
  • arguments from analogy then we can only specifiy the cause that the arguments merit
  • all it does is infer a designer not necessarily a creator
  • this means the materials used to make the universe go unexplained
  • god is thus an architect not a creator of the materials of the universe
43
Q

what is the point of swinburnes argument

A
  • its not that perfection of the universe is because of god, but because they follow the rules that God has willed
44
Q

why cant science explain scientific laws

A
  • explanation requires an explanatory framework
  • an explanatroy framework consits of facts and principles
  • but laws of nature are the base-level explanatory framework
45
Q

formally outline swinburnes argument

A

p1- there are some temporal regularities, e.g. related to human actions that are explained in terms of persons
p2- there are other temporal regularaties e.g related to the operation of the laws of nature that are similarto those explained in terms of persons
c1- so we can by analogy explain the regularities relating to the operations of the laws of nature in terms of persons
p3- there is no scientiffic explanation of the operation of the laws of nature
p4- as far as we know there are only two types of explanation - sceintifc and personal
c2- therefore there is no better explanationg of the regularaties relating to the peration of the laws of nature than in terms of person
c3- therefore the laws of nature are produced by a person
c4- therefore such a person that can act on thee entire universe exitsi

46
Q

what are the two kind of regularaties according to swinburne

A
  • copresence and succession
47
Q

what does swinburne say about the objection that effect should be equal/proportional to cause

A
  • this rule does not work when applied universally
  • if a sceintist said that the cause of e had e rpoducing characteristic then this does not add anything to our knowledge
48
Q

why does hume’s unqiue case argument not work

A
  • because sceintists have been able o reach very well-tested conclusions about the universe and we have ideas about the human race
  • the universe despite being unique iis comprised of parts we understand
  • thus its uniqueness is relative to description
49
Q

why does swinburne argue that we cannot just use science to explain laws o nature, why must it be the actions of an agent ?

A
  • beacuase an explanation requires an explanatory framewok and such is made up of facts and principles, yet thyis is what sceince is- creates a regress
50
Q

what is a big problem with swinburne’s argument as an argument from design

A
  • it is a retreat from the classical theist conception of god
  • just says there is a disembodied creator nothing about it being a god
  • therefore by just saying that there is a creator is does not get us any further it just kicks the can down the road as why is there then a designer, what caused this designer

Metaphysics of God (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions