Formal arguments Flashcards
What is forAl-Ghazali’s formal Kalam argument?
P1: Everything with a beginning must have a cause.
P2: The universe has a beginning.
C: Therefore, the univers must have a cause.
What is Al-Ghazali’s formal Kalam argument concerning Jupiter and Saturn?
P1: Jupiter has a 12-year orbit, and Saturn has a 30-year orbit.
P2: If time is infinite, then Jupiter does exactly the same number of orbits as Saturn.
P3: This is absurd.
C1: Therefore, time cannot be infinite, and the universe must have a beginning.
C2: The cause of the universe must have a person-cause. This cause is God.
What is Aquinas’ formal Firat Way?
P1: Things change in the world (Are in motion).
P2: Change means moving from a potential state to an actual state.
P3: This change can only occur through the causation of something already in that state.
P4: Nothing can cause itself to change.
P5: This chain of motion cannot go on forever, as then there would have been nothing to start the chain. (Reductio ad absurdum)
P6: But there clearly is a chain, and therefore a first mover.
C: This first mover is God.
What is Aquinas’ formal Second Way?
P1: There is an order of efficient causes.
P2: Nothing can be the cause of itself.
P3: The order of efficient causes cannot go on infinitely. Reductio ad absurdum.
C1: Therefore, there must be a first cause which does not require a cause.
C2: this cause is God.
What is Aquinas’ formal Third Way?
P1: Things in the world are contingent
P2: If everything was contingent, then it is possible there was a time when everything had passed out of existence.
P3: If once there was nothing, then there must be nothing now,but this is false.
C1: Therefore, not everything is contingent, there is one thing that is necessary.
C2: This being is God.
What is Descartes’ formal cosmological argument concerning causation?
P1: The Cause of my existence as a thinking thing could be:
- Myself (I would’ve made myself perfect, and I cannot sustain myself)
- I have always existed (I would be aware of this)
- My parents (They do not sustain me each moment, only physical)
- A being less than God (I have a perfect idea of God in my mind)
- God. (By elimination, God is the only possibility)
What is Leibniz’ formal cosmological argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason?
P1: No fact can ever be true or existent unless there is a sufficient reason why things are as they are.
P2: Contingent facts exist.
P3: Contingent facts can only be partially explained in terms of other contingent facts.
C1: A contingent reason cannot be fully explained by any contingent fact within a series.
C2: The sufficient reason to explain all contingent facts must lay outside of the series.
C3: The ultimate reason must be a necessary fact we know as ‘God’.
What is Hume’s formal argument against the causal principle proving that it is not a matter of fact?
P1: If X and Y are observed as constantly connected in our mind, then we believe one to lead to the other.
P2: Our sense of expectation provides our idea of a necessary connection between X and Y.
C: This idea of a necessary connection is what gives us our belief that X causes Y.
What is Hume’s argument against the causal principle which proves it is not a relation of ideas?
P1: If ‘everything event has a cause’ can be known a priori, then denying it would lead to a contradiction.
P2: ‘Not every event has a cause,’ is not contradictory, as we can conceive of events which have no cause.
C: Therefore, ‘every event has a cause’ cannot be known a priori.
What is Russell’s fallacy of composition example?
P1: Every human has a mother
P2: The human species is composed of these individuals.
C: Therefore, the whole species must have a mother.
What is Hume’s argument against the idea of a necessary being?
P1: Nothing that is distinctly conceivable entails a contradiction.
P2: For any being that we can conceive of as existent, we can also think of as non-existent.
C: Therefore, there is no being whose non-existence entails a contradiction.
What is Russell’s argument against the idea of a necessary being?
P1: The concept of a ‘necessary’ can only be applied to propositions, and in particular propositions that are analytic.
P2: An analytic proposition is one that is self-contradictory to deny.
P3: It is not self-contradictory to say ‘God does not exist,’
C: Therefore, God exists is not an analytic or necessary truth.
