Rational Theology - Short Answer

Question 1

Briefly present and explain the argument for God’s existence that appeals to the existence of miracles, and present the objection that no one can ever know at least one of the premises of this argument to be true

Answer 1

[The sunrise exists + If a sunrise exists, then whatever created the sunrise exists] = Whatever created the sunrise exists + God created the sunrise = God exists

?• No one can ever know whether or not miracles exist because there is no objectivity when the skeptical and the believer’s view conflict due to 1) preconceived notions and 2) cognitive measures for rationalization of 1)

Question 2

Briefly present and explain the objection according to which by Aquinas’ lights, there can be no first changer, because to think that there is is incoherent.

Answer 2

REDUCTIO

Target claim: There is no 1st changer

Reductio: Assume there IS a first changer
If X changes Y, then X undergoes a change
>
If god is a changer, god must undergo a change
>
Must be something else changes God
>
God is not the first changer

Question 3

Briefly present and explain Anselm’s argument for the existence of god

Answer 3

Anselm argues for the conclusion that once you understand what god is, you are rationally committed to her existence

Target claim God exists in fact
Assume: God does not exist in fact
+
God exists in the understanding
=
God exists only in the understanding
+
If something exists in the understanding and in fact, then it is greater than something that exists only in the understanding
=
A greater being than God can be conceived
≠ God is a being greater than which none can be conceived

Since there is a contradiction, we must accept the first premise

Question 4

You have just bought a house. It’s worth $1,000,000. You now face the decision of whether to buy fire insurance for the next year or not (assume for the purposes of this question that you’re under no legal obligation one way or the other). You live in a fairly safe area: there’s a 0.1% chance that your house will burn down over the course of the next year (the lifetime of your insurance policy, should you choose to buy it).
1. The insurance company offers you the following policy: pay an insurance premium of $100. If the house burns, you’ll be reimbursed for the total value of the house (though not for the premium). If the house doesn’t burn during the lifetime of your insurance policy, nothing else happens.
• Write out the payoff matrix for this situation and compute the expected values of the two courses of action open to you.
•• Which course of action should you choose according to maximize expected value?
••• Suppose that you’re making the decision not in line with maximize expected value but in line with MaxiMin. What is the highest premium the insurance company can charge you and still make buying the insurance the rational choice according to MaxiMin? Justify your answer.
2. • For “MaxiMin”, choose the best worst outcome.
•• For “Maximize Expected Value”: choose the action with the highest expected value

Answer 4

1) Buy Policy:
Home burns (.1) = 1M
Home doesn't burn (.9) = -100

EV: 1 * 1M + .9 * -100 = 99,900

No Policy:
Home Burns (.1) = -1M
Home doesn't burn (.9) = 100

EV: .1 * -1M + .9 * 100 = -99,900

• • Max EV: buy insurance policy because it it the action with the highest expected value given the possibility of the home burning and the cost of the home and premium
• •• 99,999.99, because losing 99,999.99 will still be a better worse outcome than losing 1m

2. • MaxiMin: The worst outcome if you buy the insurance policy is losing $100 while the worst outcome if you don’t buy the insurance policy is losing $1m; the best of the worst outcomes is buying the insurance policy
   •• Max EV: buy insurance policy because it is the action with the highest expected value (99,9999,900 rather than -999,999,900) given the possibility of the home burning and the cost of the home and premium