Final Exam Prep Flashcards
Modal Ontological Argument
1) modal logic
2) there is a possibility god exists
3) god exists if and only if he exists necessarily
4) hence it is possible that it is necessary that god exists
5) using modal logic, god must exist necessarily
Plantinga Modal Ontological Argument
1) there is a possibility of an unsurpassable greatness
2) it is necessarily true that an unsurpassable greatness is one which has maximal excellence in every possible world
3) it is necessarily true that a being that has maximal excellence possesses omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience
4) it is necessary that an unsurpassable greatness exists in every world
Design Argument
1) there exists complex structures in the world
2) nothing comes from nothing, hence these structures have a cause
3) it is highly improbable that structures of these complexity arose from chance collisions
4) for every x, if x has a purpose, x must have a purposer
5) for every y, if y is a purposer, y must be a mind
6) hence, these complex structures must have a purpose
7) hence, these complex structures must have been created by a mind
Swinburn Finetuning Argument
The world is specifically ‘fine tuned’ for life on earth. Any minor change and we would not be able to exist.
Counters to design argument t
1) spinnoza (eyes dont mean shit)
2) hume (not perfect, not good, not single, baby god)
3) epicurean (atoms did they thing fr)
4) dennett (evolution is either created naturally or by mind, if by mind it wouldn’t be suboptimal, it is suboptimal, must be natural)
Spinazona counter (Design argument)
Eye simply happens to be able to see, there is no purpose.
Hume Counter (Design argument)
1) this does not prove god is perfect
2) this does not prove god is good
3) this does not prove that god is only one
4) this does not prove that god does not have a creator (baby god)
Epicurean theory (design argument)
- posit space
- posit atoms
- posit natural motion on part of atoms
- posit atoms have eternal properties (attract/repel)
posit= recognize the possibility of:
With this, we have everything we need to create intricate purposeful structures
created by atoms floating around, (creation by chance), some collisions have greater survival ability than others
Bertrand Russell belief (design argument)
1) evolution disproves the need for god.
2) how could a god that is perfect create such an imperfect world (ku kulx klan)
Darwin belief (design argument)
flip flopping
Dennett Counter
1) if evolution was not created naturally, it would have to be created by a mind
2) if evolution was created by a mind, it would not be suboptimal
3) but it is suboptimal (backwards retina)
4) the universe must be created naturally
anslems ontological argument
1) its greater to exist in reality than only in the mind
2) if the being greater than which cannot be conceived existed only in the mind, it would not be the being greater than which cannot be conceived
3) hence the being greater than which cannot be conceived doesn’t exist only in the mind
Gauinolo objection to Anselm + reply
parody objection
Same argument with island - must exist in reality, but it does not
counter: the idea of an island which is greater than which cannot be conceived is unintelligible, how do we decide which qualities are great? this is subjective?
Descartes ontological argument
the concept of god is the concept of a necessary existence, if one thinks of god has not existing than one is not thinking of god
there is no way of thinking of god as not existing
‘can you think of a triangle without three sides’
kant counter to Descartes + reply
existence is not a property. existence is a precondition for other properties
epicurean argument for the problem of evil
0) God = powerful, good being
1) if god is powerful, he can remove evil
2) if god is good, he wills to remove evil
3) Evil exists (suffering exists)
4) god can and wills to remove evil
5) hence, evil does not exist
6) Contradiction
assumptions in the problem of evil?
extra assumption 1 (4): god does whatever god wills / god achieves everything he wishes
Extra assumption 2 (also in 4): god does right now whatever god wills right now
extra assumption 3: it makes sense to ascribe these things to god
Responses to POE
1) Pre Christian Greek Traditional Response to POE (it is beneath god to care about human affairs)
2) Traditional Christian response to POE (gods plan)
3) Ash’arism response to POE (it is wrong to attribute human qualities to god)
Pre Christian Greek Traditional Response to POE (Aristotle/Cicero)
it is wrong to think gods goodness means that god wishes to remove all evil among human beings
it is beneath god to care about human affairs
God manages the universe, humanity are just ants in the grand scheme of things
Traditional Christian response to POE (St. Augustin)
God brings the good out of evil. Colonialism example, we exist due to colonialism, and while colonialism is bad, we are good
christian theists believe in after life, where evil is essentially dealt with. hence, god is not ignoring evil
this happens because god is almighty
evil can be allowed because good can come out of it, and the evil can be addressed in the afterlife
Ash’arism response to POE
It is arrogant as well as philosophically difficult to claim that one’s mind can identify moral facts, and that God is also bound by these moral facts
Good and evil are relational, and moral facts are not objective
human minds cannot adequately evaluate gods actions (if god does not do x, god is not good)
Martin Luther response
evil can be addressed in the afterlife. There is life beyond this life, in which all will be punished and repaid
Mackie argument of evil / logical argument from evil
(1) God is omnipotent
(2) God is perfectly good
(3) Evil Exists
(4) there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do (implication from 1)
(5) a good thing eliminates evil as far as it can (implication from 2)
What is the FWD
1) God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent
2) evil exists
3) God creates a world containing moral goodness
4) And, it is possible that all possible persons suffer from trans world depravity
5) hence it is consistent with Theism and gods attributes (goodness and power) to actualize a world in which there is evil
What is proposition C in FWD
1) God creates a world containing moral goodness
2) And, it is possible that all possible persons suffer from trans world depravity
3) hence it is consistent with Theism and gods attributes (goodness and power) to actualize a world in which there is evil
What are Craigs two counters to Krauss counter to causal principle + further conversations
1) Craig: Quantum vacuum is not nothing
2) Craig: just because you cannot see a cause does not mean it isn’t there (observable cause does not equal actual cause)
Krauss: There is no reason to acknowledge a potential cause if there is no reason to believe that a cause exists
Craig: There is reason to believe that it has a cause if you believe in the causal principle
what needs to be granted to grant the free will defence
1) incompatibalism about free will (free will and determinism are incompatible)
2) moral goodness presupposes freedom
3) consistent with theism for god to create a world containing moral goodness
4) its possible that every possible person suffers from transworld depravity
expanded FWD
1) simple fwd
2) extend it to cover vast amount of evil
3) extending it to cover natural evil
what is the quantitative FWD (step 2: extend it to cover vast amount of evil)
1) It is consistent with gods attributed to create a world with as much goodness as this world
2) it is possible that this amount of goodness couldn’t be had without this amount of evil
3) it is consistent with gods attributes to create a world containing this amount of evil
what are the counters to the FWD
1) Mackie (it is limiting gods omnipotence to say that he cannot strongly actualize a world in which everyone freely does the right thing)
2) snyder hawthorne (TWS is as likely as TWD)
3) hume kraal (it is not necessarily consistent with gods attributes to create a world with this amount of goodness if the evil vastly outweighs the goodness)
Further Responses to counters to FWD
1) Mackie
2) snyder hawthorne
3) hume kraal
1) Not limiting gods power as forcing someone to freely do something is a contradiction
2) TWS is not as likely based on rational intuition
3) Felix culpa: there cannot be more evil than goodness due to the sheer goodness of this action (Jesus sacrifice in Christianity)
what are the major objections to god
1) problem of evil
2) coherence objections
3) hiddenness objections
4) redundancy objections
5) evidential objections
what is the evidential argument from evil (William Rowe)
1) there exists pointless evil (evil that does not serve any purpose)
2) an all good/powerful/knowledgeable being would prevent the occurrence of pointless evil
3) but there is pointless evil
4) hence there is no such being
What is Wykston’s skeptical theism (response to Rowe’s evidential argument) + counter
1) humans would only to assess whether there is pointless evil if they had access to the big picture
2) but humans dont have such access
counter:
1) skeptical theism implies moral paralysis
what are the coherence objections
omnibenovlence: problem of evil
omnipotence: problem of the stone
omniscience: omniscience implies foreknowledge which implies lack of free will
counters to coherence objection with omniscience (foreknowledge problem)
Cicero/Swinburne counter1: open theism - God does not know the future
Counter 2: Distinguish will/can happen (foreknowledge follows free choices/recognizes choices. You do not HAVE to eat a hamburger, but you will. Must means you cannot do otherwise, but god knows you will freely do it)
Buethius counter 3: strictly god has no foreknowledge (god knows everything now, god is timeless)
what is the hiddeness objection
a perfectly loving god would make his existence known to people who didn’t know of him but wanted to know
what is the redundancy objection (from epicureans)
1) we should always claim the simpler explanation (principle of simplicity)
2) naturalism is the simpler explanation
counter for redundancy objection
naturalism is not the simpler explanation because nothing comes from nothing. God is required
what are the different theistic stories
hume: need for happiness
Marx: class conflict
freud: cosmic dad
plantinga counter to naturalistic arguments
(1)
these stories are just announced and not argued for
what if you dont find story plausible?
(2)
if naturalism is true, it makes sense to look for belief in god through natural means as those are The only ones that exist
if theism is true, god may influence thoughts to allow for belief in god
it is justifiable to think that god exists, and it is wrong to think that it is unjustified to think god doesn’t exist
What is the Kalam cosmological argument
1) Causal Principle: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Hence, the creation of the universe must have a distinct (*personal) cause
What is philopunus two arguments
1) an actual infinity of real things is impossible
2) an actual infinity of real things (even if possible) would be impossible to traverse
explain philoponus first argument (an actual infinity of real things is impossible)
1) if the world were eternal, the present moment would be preceded by an actual infinity of past moments
2) past events are real things
3) an actual infinity of real things is impossible
4) hence an actual infinity of past events is impossible (from 2,3)
5) hence, the world isn’t eternal (from 1 - 4)
explain philoponus second argument (an actual infinity of real things (even if possible) would be impossible to traverse)
1) if the world were eternal, the present moment would be preceded by an actual infinity of past moments
2) but it is impossible to traverse, an actual infinity of past moments to arrive at the present
3) therefore, if the world were eternal, we wouldn’t have been able to arrive at the present moment
4) but we are in the present moment
5) hence, the world isn’t eternal
What are the counters to the Cosmological Argument
1) Krauss: quantum vacuum
2) Hume: not intuitive
3) Bertrand Russell: set theory
what is Bertrand Russels objection + assumptions to Cosmological argument
cantorian set theory proves that an actual infinity of real things is possible
1) numbers are real things (mathematical platonism)
2) consistency implies possibility
What are Craigs two a posterori arguments for the universe having a beginning
1) thermodynamics law (if the universe always existed we would have already run out of energy)
(all energy goes to absolute zero (coffee cup example), everything runs out of energy)
2) big bang singularity (Hubble observation of expansion galaxy, shows that universe is expanding and started from a single point)
What is Humes objection to the causal principle
we do not know the causal principle to be true
not intuitive
1) contradictions
2) resemblance
3) quantity
4) quality
What are Krauss counter to causal principle
Krauss: Quantum Vacuum. Space void of matter that has atoms seemingly being
created out of nothing
arguments for personal reasons over mechanical reason for creation of universe?
Craig: if the cause were mechanical, the effect would have to last as long as the cause (cause would have to be everlasting, which it is not)
Swinburne: laws of nature were created with the creation of the universe hence cannot apply with the creation of the universe itself
Aristotle/Aquinas cosmological argument
1) the world is in a state of motion
2) Something else must cause the state of motion
3) The cause of the state of motion can also be something else in motion
4) This loop of movers causing movement cannot continue infinitum
5) There must exist an unmoved mover
Arguments against Aristotle/Aquinas Cosmological argument
1) Bertrand Russell: brute fact: does not need explanation
2) Russell: why require an alternate explanation
3) Newtonian objection: rest and motion are equally natural states
Leibniz cosmological argument
1) the world is in a state of contingent affairs
2) Something else must cause this contingency
3) That which causes the contingency may also be a contingency itself
4) This loop of contingencies causing contingencies cannot continue infinitum
5) There must exist a necessary being that exists creating the contingencies
Argument against Leibniz cosmological argument
hume: conceivability implies possibility, whatever we conceive as existing we can conceive as not existing hence no neccesary being
Clifford evidential objection
it is wrong to believe anything with insufficient evidence
