OA part 2 Flashcards
who is Aquinas’ criticism specific to
Anselm
what is Aquinas’s criticism to do with god’s essence
if we knew God’s essence, we would know God exists
we do not and cannot know God’s existence
what is Aquinas’s criticism to do with definition
we don’t have an agreed definition of God, even if we did, how would we know if it’s correct?
What does Aquinas not agree with in terms of Anselm
doesn’t agree with the idea of the ‘fool’, saying ‘there is not God’ is acceptable
what is a weakness of aquinas to do with essence
we don’t need to know God’s essence completely
How can God only be proved for Aquinas
God can only be proved through empirical observations about the nature of the cause in the world
weakness to do with Australia of aquinas
existence of Australia, without having been here
What does Aquinas not share with Descartes
Descartes has an innate knowledge and knowledge of God, which Aquinas does not share, knowledge is not innate
what is a weakness of aquinas to do with ideas
clearly doesn’t have a clear and distinct idea
What dies Hume argue is not possible
not possible to use rationality and logic to reach a conclusion and apply it to the universe
because we base knowledge on what we can actually prove, not through logic and and rational thinking
what is a weakness of Hume to do with logic
we have ideas generated through logic and rational thinking that aren’t observable e.g. beauty and love
Hume’s point about predicate
existence can’t be treated as a predicate, denying God doesn’t cause a contradiction
weakness of Hume to do with God
some people claim to experience God and God doesn’t have a set definition, so could include existence
what is Kant’s argument against the OA
something can be defined without it being true
there’s a difference between talking about concepts and reality
what is a weakness of Kant to do with predicate
a predicate that includes existence but does not exist is rare
Kant’s point about existence
existence is not a property
weakness of Kant from Descartes
Descartes says to describe himself he must use existence
what is Russels points against the OA
Anselm uses the term exist incorrectly
using existence as a predicate does not mean God exists, false predicate
Russel’s 2 premise analogy
P1 Donkey’s exist
P2 Eeyore is a donkey
C therefore, Eeyore exists
What is Platinga’s argument called
model argument
what is the basis of Platinga’s model argument
not all worlds are possible
e.g. where all bachelors are married or triangles have 5 sides because the opposition would be true in every possible world
what is the case in every possible world for platinga
God necessarily exists
what are the two concepts plating uses to define God
maximal excellence
maximal greatness
what is maximal excellence (platinga)
God of traditional theism
what is maximal greatness (platinga)
maximal excellence in every possible world
why do these two concepts mean God must exist everywhere for Platinga
if this being exists, would have to exist in all possible words because a ‘maximally great being’ would
what is P1-3 of Platinga’s argument
P1 it is possible a maximally great being exists
P2 if that’s possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
P3 if that’s the case, then it exists in every possible world
what is P4-5 + C of Platinga’s argument
P4 if a maximally great being exists in every world, then it exists in the actual world
P5 if that’s the case, a maximally great being exists
C therefore, a maximally great being exists
which part of Platinga’s argument is generally accepted by philosphers
P2-5 and c
what is the issue with Platinga’s argument and why
P1-2
accepting a maximally great being possible exists doesn’t mean actually does
Platinga fails to show possibility, definition depends on possible worlds
why does platinga appeal to a possible world
platinga appeals to a possible world to show the existence of a maximally great being is logically necessary in this world
what is a weakness of aquinas to do with logic
can be argues this world only exists in the realms of logic
what is Aquinas’ criticism of Platinga
the only way to argue God’s existence is from the evidence at our disposal from the world around us
what does Platinga argue doesn’t vary
+
what’s necessarily true and what’s impossible doesn’t vary from world to world
but we can only know the truth of these arguments in a logical way, not empirical
what have we not observed (platinga)
we haven’t observed whether necessity and impossibility apply in the same way accross all possible worlds
what is a strength of the OA to do with logic
to accept God’s definition and argue for his existence does not create a logical error
strength of platinga to do with science
platinga starts his argument with a scientific hypothesis and if multiverse theory is proved, then it is mathematically and logically sound
major weakness of OA put forward by Kant
we can just reject the definition of God
can’t define something into existence
biggest flaws of Platinga’s argument
if the multiverse theory is proved wrong, the whole argument falls apart
if there’s an infinite number or worlds with an infinite number of possibilities, there must be a world with no God
