NOTES FOR TEST ONE

StudyBlue printing of NOTES FOR TEST ONE html, body, div, span, applet, object, iframe, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, p, blockquote, pre, a, abbr, acronym, address, big, cite, code, del, dfn, em, font, img, ins, kbd, q, s, samp, small, strike, strong, sub, sup, tt, var, b, u, i, center, fieldset, form, label, legend, table, caption, tbody, tfoot, thead, tr, th, td { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; background: transparent; } body { line-height: 1; } blockquote, q { quotes: none; } blockquote:before, blockquote:after, q:before, q:after { content: ''; content: none; } /* remember to define focus styles! */ :focus { outline: 0; } /* remember to highlight inserts somehow! */ ins { text-decoration: none; } del { text-decoration: line-through; } /* tables still need 'cellspacing="0"' in the markup */ table { border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0; } /* end RESET */ .header { min-width:800px; } .logo { padding:6px 20px 2px 20px; margin:0; font-size:25px; font-weight:bold; color:#808285; position:relative; border-bottom: 1px solid #c5c5c5; } .logo-blue { color:#70adc4; } .logo-desc { font-weight:normal; font-size:19px; color:#cccccc; margin-top:50px; position:absolute; display: none; } .back-button { position:absolute; top:20px; right:20px; font-size:13px; line-height:25px; color:rgb(0,175,225); font-weight:normal; } .back-button a { color:rgb(0,175,225); } .instructions { padding:0; margin:0; width:100%; position:relative; color:rgb(100,100,100); } .step-holder { border-left:1px solid #ededed; margin-left:20px; } .steps { padding:15px 0; float:left; width:24%; border-right:1px solid #ededed; text-align:center; } .steps-01 { } .steps-02 { } .steps-03 { } .steps-04 { } .label { padding:5px 10px; } .print-button { } .print-button a { background-color:rgb(0,175,225); color:white; line-height: 19px; padding:9px 8px 5px 30px; font-size:14px; text-decoration:none; background-image: url(images/printer.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 7px 50%; -moz-border-radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px; } .print-button a:hover { background-color:black; } .theNote .content { width: 8.0in !important; margin: 5px auto; padding:20px; background-color:white; } .theNote .header { border-bottom: 1px dashed #C8C8C8; font-size: 17px; padding: 0 0 10px; line-height: 19px; color: #00ADE1; min-width:500px; } .theNote .body { font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; padding: 10px 0; } .theNote{ padding:6px 0; clear:both; background-color: rgb(200,200,200); } .theNote h3{ color: rgb(100,100,100); } .theNote h1, .theNote h3{ background-color:white; padding:2px 20px; width:8.0in !important; margin: 0 auto; font-size: 15px; } .theNote h1{ padding-top: 10px; font-size: 15px; } .theNote h1:first-child{ font-size: 20px; } .theNote h3 { font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; } #options { border: 3px double #ccc; padding: 5px 12px; margin: 10px 50px 10px 20px; float: left; } #info { border-top: 1px solid #ccc; padding-top: 5px; font-style: italic; } li { margin: 5px 10px 5px 25px; } ul li { list-style: disc; } ol li { list-style: decimal; } img { border: 0; } table { clear: both; width: 100%; border: 1px solid #c5c5c5; border-width: 1px 0; margin: 0; page-break-after: always; } table#page { page-break-after: auto; } td { text-align: center; font-size: 12px; border-bottom: 1px dashed #c5c5c5; height: 1.75in; width: 50%; padding-left: 15px; } .leftside { border-right: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 0 15px 0 0; } .bottom td { border-bottom: none; } .clearfix { clear:both; line-height:1px; height:1px; } img { max-width:80%; max-height:150px; margin:20px; } @media print {.header { display: none; } .content .header{ display:inherit; } table { border: 1px dashed #bbb; border-width: 1px 0; } .theNote{ background-color:white; } } NOTES FOR TEST ONE 8/26/2010 PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION ARGUMENTS, LOGIC AND TRUTH what is an argument? its not defined as heated exchanges of point of view, its basically to provide support for a claim or an assertion. claim+ support= argument, same propositions= same meanings KINDS OF ARGUMENTS inductive- the goal is to say that the conclusion (maybe probable), is maybe true if the premises are true. deductive- if premises are true, the conclusion is true validity- conclusion is true in which the premises are true, its impossible to have a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion. soundness: if and only if it is valid and have true premises Truth and knowledge- if you have knowledge, its a well rounded true belief, you cant have knowledge without truth Anti-realism: no objective truth subjectivism- relative to individuals and is determined by an individual, its what you believe, whats true for me may not be true for you. cultural relativism: truth is relative to cultures and determined by cultural norms and beliefs realism- objective truth, determined by way the world is and not how individuals think the world is inference- statement to be supported and the statement that supports it reductio ad absurdium- assume the opposite of what you want to prove and show that it produces a crazy conclusion To reach reliable conclusions about a target group, the sample must be large enough and representative of the whole target group Hasty generalization- sample group is too small to make reliable conclusions EXISTENCE OF GOD, the roman catholic church has held the existence of God by human reason First Vatican council- said that humans are adequate in arriving at a state of knowledge for God, catholics have denied this Posteriori argument- based on premises that can be known only by means of experience of the world, its something outside the universe that is required to explain its existence, such being God priori- doesn't depend on premises, it rests on premises that can be known to be true independently of experience of the world THOMAS AQUINAS 5 WAYS (READINGS) 1ST ARGUMENT- there is change, there must be an unmoved mover that originates all motion but itself is not moved there must be a first cause to explain the existence of cause because there are dependent beings (humans), there must be an independent being on whom the dependent beings rely for their subsistence. because there are degrees of excellence, there must be a perfect being from where come all excellences. there is a harmony of nature that calls for an explanation PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION- religious claims, how the existence of God came about, religious traditions and claims. Coherence of claims, and religions, nature of the universe and the reasons for it. Faith and Reason. conceptual clarification- God is our heavenly father, physically male? evaluation of coherence: god is perfectly just (he gives what we deserve) and yet merciful (he cuts us a break) production and evaluation of arguments: casual argument and problem of evil, some sort of way the universe was brought in?-- by what?, why is there pain and suffering if god is amazing and controlling? philosophical study for religious claims? to prove it all folly, to help make up one's mind, to help understand what one believes. conceptions of God theism- exists a personal creator who is distinct from the universe but who remains engaged in it..example: judaism, christianity, islam deism- creator who is distinct from the universe and who is not engaged in it pantheism- no distinction between the creator and creation, god is everything and everything is part of god, buddhism and hinduism THEISM (west) theistic- believes that theist god exists atheistic- god does not exist agnostic- neither believes not disbelieves that god exists GOD OF THEISM OMNIPOTENT: god can do anything or anything that is possible OMNISCIENT- god knows everything OMNIBENEVOLENT: god is perfectly good, doesnt do evil PERSONAL: god is intelligent, has a will, capable of action CREATOR- god is the creator of the universe, and all it contains IMMATERIAL AND ASPATIAL: god has no body, and doesnt exist in space ETERNAL- god is everlasting, timeless OMNIPRESENT: god is everywhere NECESSARY- his existence doesn't depend on anything and nonexistent is impossible, he is non contingent, he doesnt need anything. 8/30/2010 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE NATURAL THEOLOGY- looking for arguments as to why god exists natural vs supernatural: (whats being reveiled by God) Evidence and rationality- why do you think god exists? intellectual exploration- what sets human beings apart? THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT - its a posteriori argument: grounded in experience - a priori argument: its independent of experience, it analyzes concepts, at least one of the premises is posteriori -grounded in abstract features of the natural world - fundamental through- "this all must have come from something, what could have brought this?" THE CAUSAL ARGUMENT -nothing can cause itself to exist -it would have to be prior to itself, but impossible -there would not be series of causes if there is not 1st cause P1: everything in the universe has a cause P2: but nothing can cause itself C1: so there must be a 1st cause or there is an infinite # of past causes in the universe P3: but there cant be an infinite # of past causes C2: therefore there is a 1st cause P4: if there is a 1st cause, then that 1st cause is God C3: therefore God exists EVALUATING ARGUMENTS- as long as the premises are true= true conclusion 2 MAIN WAYS OF OBJECTING TO ARGUMENTS: - objecting to the validity, soundness and the structure of the arguments -objecting to the truth of the premises 2 CAVEATS -invalidity isnt always bad, premises dont have to be certain to be effective OBJECTIONS TO AQUINAS -we dont have to know that everything in the universe has a cause there is no good reason to assume that the 1st cause would be God, the first cause must contain something that is the cause of the universe but it doesnt have to be God -we have no good reason for ruling out the possiblity that the universe contains an infinite series of past causes. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD EXISTENCE, PART II A contingency argument -a contingent being is a being that exists but is capable of not existing, the existence is explained by something else - a necessary being- a being that exists and non- existence of which is impossible; such as a being's nature explains its existence why is there something rather than nothing? - if everything was contingent, then at one time, there would be nothing in existence Aquinas- if there was once nothing, then we would have nothing now AQUINAS' CONTINGENT ARGUMENT P1: there are now contingent objects in the universe P2: whatever is capable of not existing does not exist at the same time C1: given P2, if only contingent objects exist, then at some point nothing exists P3: time when nothing exists= nothing would ever exist C2: given P1 AND C1, it cant be that there was a time when nothing existed C3: therefore, it cant be that all objects in the universe are contingent C4: therefore, there is necessary being and that being is God OBJECTIONS P2- confuses "capable of not existing" with "does not always exist" C1- doesnt follow P2, even if only contingent things exist, it must be that there is always something C2- doesnt follow P2 and C1, it follows only that at some time nothing will exist but that could be in future not the past REVISED ARGUMENT P1- things dont happen for no reason at all, there are explanations why things happen P2- if everything were contingent, then there would be no reason for the existence of all that there is C- therefore, there must be a necessary being 9/1/2010 1ST PREMISE is dubious since there is no explanation, the conclusion is only that a necessary being exists THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT- part 1 posteriori argument its an argument from design, most intuitive depends only on the assumption that some things must have explanations william paley- argued for gods existence, stone, heather, and watch why does the watch need explanation? because it has different parts, working together to do a function, a stone doesnt have parts because it has no purpose explanation is required for the existence of something when: when its complex (it has many parts) its parts work together to perform a function to bring about an end when something satisfies these conditions, its apparently designed watches are apparently designed, not rocks PALEYS ARGUMENT- we should infer that nature has an intelligent designerPALEYS ELABORATION- paley thinks that, in the watch case, we should infer a designer even if: 1) we'd never seen a watch made and were incapable of doing it otherwise, 2) the watch didnt keep perfect time, 3) we didnt know how all the parts contributed to the function of the watch, 4) that the matter in that location had to have some form and they are equally improbable HUME- objects to the teleological argumentHUME'S ARGUMENT whole universe, the creations on it are parts of a machine universe= machine, creation= parts of a machine if the universe has intelligence then the designer should P1: from like effects we should infer like causes P2: nature greatly resembles human artifacts in being complex and having its many parts function together for a purpose P3: human artifacts are the product of intelligence C: nature is the product of intelligence HE THINKS: the analogy is weak (the universe doesnt strongly resemble a machine) we are not in a good position to make inferences about the whole CLEANTHE'S METHOD IS BAD- if we are to make inferences about God from we see in the world, we should think of God as: finite, imperfect, possibly many, possible procreating is the analogy weak? not too strong prior to darwin, there were 2 explanations of apparent design: a designer and chance 3rd option- no designer and while chance plays a role in the theory, it is only a part of the explanation of apparent design combination of random genetic mutation and natural selection provides an explanation for apparent design 9/9/2010 THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT- reflecting on the concept of God and what it is, name or description of a title ANSLEM 12 century monk, archbishop of cantebury, wrote teleological workings, the argument is presented in a prayer, he got enlightened, its a priori argument. Reductio- make an assumption, show that it leads to an absurdity, and conclude that the assumption must be false, if this is true but its crazy, then its not true. Anslems definition of God: "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived or the greatest possible being" HIS ARGUMENT: if you have conduct of God then you have the existence of God in your understanding, conceptual understanding- existence in the understanding. P1: God exists in the understanding P2: it is greater to exist in reality and the understanding than to exist only in the understanding P3: suppose God only exists in the understanding P4: then god might have been greater than god is P5: nothing could be greater than God actually is P6: 4& 5 are contradictory Conclusion: God exists both in reality and understanding GUANILO'S OBJECTIONGuanilo- Anslem's line of reasoning can be used to show that a perfect island existsANSLEM: the line of argument works only for God because god is the greatest possible being and not just the greatest possible being of a particular type you cant prove the actual existence of a being just by reflecting on the conceptHis argument treats existence as property, they fill out or add to concepts, if existence isnt a property, then it cant be part of the concept of God THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVILwhats the problem?- 3 attributes: omnibenevolent (complete goodness), omnipotence (all powerful), omniscience (all knowing) The "know nothing" though experiment- earth being a beautiful place, no evil, no suffering Teleological problem of evil? why does God allow evil? assuming God existsPhilosophical: there is evil? how is this consistent? Argument: because of evil, then we can say there is no God Theoretical solution: try to get at philosophical solution whether it helps the grievance or not, why did it happen? Personal solution- we say God meant for this to happen, it puts us in peace, philosophically what is "evil"- states of affairs that are bad, severe pain and suffering, disasters, example of evil LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL argues for the impossibility of the coexistence of God and evil claims that the existence of evil shows conclusively that god doesnt exist the amount and kind of evil we find the world is irrelevant: a tiny bit of any kind of evil is enough to rule out the existence of God ARGUMENTP1: if god exists, then there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscent beingP2: an omnipotent being would have the power to prevent all evilP3: an omniscient being would know about any evil that was going to occur and could prevent itP4: an omnibenevolent being would have the will to prevent all evilP5: any being, with the power knowledge and will to prevent all evil, prevents all evil C1: therefore, god exists, all evil is preventedP6: but all evil is not preventedC2: therefore god doesnt exist NOTHING COULD BE God if that lacks any of those 3 attributes, if you are omnibenevolent, then you must prevent all evil, if an agent has the power to perform an action, then that person will perform the action Theist's reply deny the existence of evil, atheist wins evil is necessary for goodness, you cant have evil without good, inconsistent with theism evil is necessary for us to know the good humans are responsible for evil, god isnt 9/13/2010 THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL, PART 2 P4: an omnibenevolent being has the will to prevent all evil, moral weakness- why would one allow evil, preventing evil by introducing a small amount of evil to make things good The Free Will Defense- divide in kinds of creation Deterministic- universe in which everything that will happen is determined at the beginning of the universe Indeterministic- is one in which some events that happen are not determined at the beginning of the universe if god wants to make creatures who are of significant moral goodness, he will have to give them genuine freedom= requires creating an indeterministic world free creatures= may produce evil REPLY TO THE FREE WILL DEFENSE why cant god create a world in which creatures never do wrong? god can bring out any possible creations for evil acts, the agent could have instead done the right thing every time, every agent faces a moral choice, she freely does the right thing you could do the right thing or the wrong thing, he gives them a choice THE THEIST'S REBUTAL grant in which everyone only does right even omnipotent god could not guarentee that depends on the creation, on what free creatures do