ICoG

Question 1

Define ‘Omnipotence’.

Answer 1

The ability to perform all tasks.

Question 2

Define ‘Omniscience’.

Answer 2

Having knowledge of all true propositions.

Question 3

Define ‘Omnibenevolence’.

Answer 3

Supreme goodness.

Question 4

Summarize ‘The Paradox of the Stone’.

Answer 4

The Paradox of the Stone is an argument within the Metaphysics of God that argues that God cannot be omnipotent, as the concept of an omnipotent being is incoherent.

Question 5

State ‘The Paradox of the Stone’ in standard form.

Answer 5

P1: Either God can make a stone that God cannot move or God cannot do this.
P2: If God can make such a stone then there is a task that God cannot perform.
P3: If God cannot make such a stone then there is a task that God cannot perform.
C1: Therefore, either way there will always be a task that God cannot perform.
C2: Therefore, there cannot be a being that can perform all tasks/bring about all state of affairs.
C3: Therefore an omnipotent being is impossible and the concept of omnipotence is incoherent.

Question 6

State what type of argument ‘The Paradox of the Stone’ is.

Answer 6

1) Paradox - We can reach a seemingly false conclusion from seemingly true premises and valid logic.
2) Deductive - As it follows with logical necessity not not high certainty.
3) A Priori - As none of the premises are justified by experience.

Question 7

Summarize ‘The Omniscience Incompatibility Argument’.

Answer 7

The Incompatibility is an argument within the Metaphysics of God that argues that the concepts of God being omniscient and humanity having free will are incompatible and cannot both be true.

Question 8

State ‘The Omniscience Incompatibility Argument’ in standard form.

Answer 8

P1: If God is omniscient then God knows all true propositions.
P2: If God knows all true propositions then God knows what I will do.
P3: If God knows what I will do then I am unable to do anything else
P4: If I am unable to do anything else, then I am not free.
C1: Therefore, if God is omniscient then I am not free.
P5: If I am not free, God is not omnibenevolent.
C2: Therefore, if God is omniscient then God is not omnibenevolent.

Question 9

State what type of argument ‘The Omniscience Incompatibility Argument’ is.

Answer 9

1) Incompatibility - As it aims to show that two different propositions cannot exist at the same time.
2) Deductive - As it follows with logical necessity not not high certainty.
3) A Priori - As none of the premises are justified by experience.

Question 10

Summarize ‘The Euthyphro Dilemma’.

Answer 10

The Euthyphro is an argument within the Metaphysics of God that argues that there is no acceptable way to understand an omnibenevolent God’s relationship to moral goodness, meaning God cannot be omnibenevolent.

Question 11

State ‘The Euthyphro Dilemma’ in standard form.

Answer 11

P1: There are only two ways of understanding God’s relationship to moral goodness:
a) Actions are morally right independently of God’s commands.
b) Actions are morally right only because God commands them.
P2: Option ‘a’ causes a problem for God’s omnibenevolence since God is not the source of morality, and cannot be ultimately good unless moral goodness depends on God.
P3: Option b) causes a problem for God’s omnibenevolence because God cannot give a moral justification for particular actions being morally right/wrong.
C1: Therefore, there is no acceptable way to understand an omnibenevolent God’s relationship to moral goodness.
C2: Therefore, God cannot be omnibenevolent.

Question 12

State what type of argument ‘The Euthyphro Dilemma’ is.

Answer 12

1) Dilemma - As it is a situation in which there are only two, unappealing or unsatisfactory options.
2) Deductive - As it follows with logical necessity not not high certainty.
3) A Priori - As none of the premises are justified by experience.

Question 13

Define a ’Concept’.

Answer 13

An abstract notion that can be coherent or incoherent.

Question 14

Define a ‘Argument’.

Answer 14

A set of claims (Premises) offered as reasons to believe or accept another claim (conclusion).

Question 15

Define a ‘Premise’.

Answer 15

A proposition within an argument that supports another proposition (a conclusion).

Question 16

Define a ‘Conclusion’.

Answer 16

A proposition within an argument that is supported by a set of propositions (premises).

Question 17

Define a ‘Intermediate Conclusion’.

Answer 17

A conclusion within an argument that is then used to support a further conclusion.

Question 18

Define a ‘Main Conclusion’.

Answer 18

The “final” conclusion of an argument.

Question 19

What are necessary conditions for an argument to be good?

Answer 19

1. Truth Condition - All the premises must be true.
2. Logic Condition - The condition must follow from the premises.

Question 20

Define a ‘Deductive Argument’.

Answer 20

An argument that intends the conclusion to follow the premises with logical necessity.

Question 21

Define a ‘Non-Deductive Argument’.

Answer 21

An argument that does not intend the conclusion to follow the premises with a high degree of probability, instead of logical necessity.

Question 22

Define ‘Dilemma’.

Answer 22

A Dilemma is a situation in which there are only two, unappealing or unsatisfactory options.

Question 23

Define ‘Paradox’.

Answer 23

A Paradox is when we can reach a seemingly false conclusion from seemingly true premises and valid logic.

Question 24

Define ‘Incompatibility’.

Answer 24

An Incompatibility is when two different propositions cannot both be true at the same time.

Question 25

Define ‘Sound’.

Answer 25

When an argument has true premises and the conclusion follows the premises.

Question 26

Define ‘Valid’.

Answer 26

When an argument has false premises and the conclusion follows the premises.

Question 27

Define ‘Invalid’.

Answer 27

When an argument has true premises and the conclusion does not follow the premises.

Question 28

Define ‘Unsound’.

Answer 28

When an argument has false premises and the conclusion does not follow the premises.