Midterm

Question 1

Monotheism

Answer 1

the belief that there is only one God. Shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians

Question 2

Classical theism

Answer 2

-creation out of nothing

Question 3

Classical Theism and the Nature of God

Answer 3

simple, impassible, immutable, unchanging,, timeless.

Question 4

Implication of classical theism

Answer 4

God is vastly different than anything in th temporal and changing world. For this reason classical theists maintain that any language we apply to God must be analogical and not univocal.

Question 5

theistic personalism

Answer 5

persons and bodies

Question 6

Theistic personalism and the rejection of classical theism

Answer 6

1. stresses God “as person”
2. If we want to understand what a person is, we start with human beings
3. But God is not just like a human being. He is decidedly different; he is a person without a body
4. God is the greatest possible being
5. Rejection of classical theism; denies that

Question 7

Rejection of classical theism

Answer 7

denies that God impassible, unchanging, simple and timmeless. Talk of God is univocal

Question 8

Four approaches to the relationship between philosophy and religion

Answer 8

Verification and Falsification
Evidentialism
Rational Belief Without Evidence (Reformed Epistemology)

Question 9

Verification and Falsification

Answer 9

Philosophy can say that religious beliefs are unintellibible or meaninglesss, since they are empirically unverifiable or unfalsifiable

Question 10

Evidentialism

Answer 10

religious beliefs should rejected unless they can be defended by means of philosophical argument and/or evidence

Question 11

Rational belief without evidence (reformed epistemology

Answer 11

it can be reasonable to accept some religious beliefs without evidence or argument

Question 12

Clifford

Answer 12

“it is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Example of ship owner

Question 13

Plantiga

Answer 13

Is belief in God properly basic?

Question 14

classical foundationalism

Answer 14

a. some of our beliefs must be based on others.
b. belief in God is not evident to the sense, incorrigible, or self-evident. Thus, belief in God must be based on evidence, which in turn we derive from our basic beliefs. So, unless you have evidence that God exists, you are not rational.

Question 15

Plantigan Observations

Answer 15

a. evidnece is something to which we point, believe, etc. as the basis for believing other things, eg detective work, scientific theories, etc
b. our beliefs are not under our control
c. plantiga rejects natural theology
d. classical foundationalism is self-refuting

Question 16

Why can’t belief in God be basic?

Answer 16

A. we hold a varitey of basic beliefs for which we don’t appeal to evidence. WE know them immediately given the right circumstances an if our cognitive faculites are functioning
B. most people who believe in God believe there are circumstances in which they have a direct awareness of God
ex: i sense the eyes of God upon me, the beauty of a mountain range, deep gratitifude fror life; mystical experiences
C. the vast majority in the history of the world have believed in God . Why assume they are mistaken?

Question 17

Cosmological Arguments

Answer 17

from the “cosmos” or the fact of the universe’s existence to God

Question 18

Design Arguments

Answer 18

from design in the universe to God’s existence

Question 19

Ontological Arguments

Answer 19

arguments form the concept of God to God’s actual existence

Question 20

Per accident

Answer 20

Abraham begats Isaac begats Jacob begats Joseph. Joseph can exist long after his predecessors die.

Question 21

Per se

Answer 21

the hand moves the stick moves the stone. It is essentially ordered series in the here and now

Question 22

The First Cause Argument– Premise 1

Answer 22

something that does not exist by nature requires something else to bring it into existence that already exists.

• -we can distinguish between a thing’s nature and its existence
  ex: unicorn’s human beings etc
• • for something to move from potential to actual , you need something actual

Question 23

The First Cause Argument – Premise 2

Answer 23

But there cannot be an infinite regress of present cause of existence
–ex: hang moving stick moving rock

Question 24

The First Cause Argument Conclusion:

Answer 24

thus there must exist an uncaused cause that is the first cause (Aquinas’ “first cause” is a “first cause” in being, not time)

Question 25

Objections to First Cause Argument"

Answer 25

Aquinas says that God accounts for the being of the world. But what accounts for the being of God? How does Aquinas reply? But doesn't this imply that God is necessary? But doesn't necessity apply only to statements and not real things that exists? After all, a denial of a necesary truth involves a contradiction (2+2=5) and one can deny God's existence without contradiction and one can deny God's existence wihtout contradicting oneself?

Question 26

examples to better understand the impossibility of infinite regress in the here and now: Transparent Room Ex

Answer 26

"imagine there is a room, A, with transparent walls walls that would otherwise be dark if not for light emanating from a larger room, B, with transparent walls that totally encompasses A" and so on and so fourth

Question 27

examples to better understand the impossibility of infinite regress in the here and now: "Intellectuallist Legend"

Answer 27

Sadowsky's example: You cannot do anything (including asking for permission) without asking for permission

Question 28

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Premise 1:

Answer 28

everything that begins the exist has a cause

Question 29

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Premise 2:

Answer 29

The universe has a cause

Question 30

Scientific argument 1:

Answer 30

big bang cosmology. The evidence indicates that the universe is expanding at the same speed in all directions. From this, scientists infer that the universe had a beginning

Question 31

Scientific argument 2:

Answer 31

second law of thermodynamics, or heat death. If the universe is moving toward heat death, it should have happened already. But it hasn't. So, the universe had a beginning

Question 32

Philosophical Argument 1:

Answer 32

impossibility of an actual event existing in real world eg: Hilbert's Hotel An actual infinite cannot exist in reality --if the past was beginningless, then the past was an actual infinite. So the past must have had a beginning

Question 33

Philsophical Argument 2

Answer 33

impossibilty of traversing an infinite number of moments. It is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. eg: counting from 1 to infinity - -if the past was beginningless, than an infinite number of moments were traversed to reach the present. So the past could not have been infinite

Question 34

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Conclusion

Answer 34

the universe has a cause

Question 35

implication of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Answer 35

the cause of the universe must be a personal agent. If non-personal, then like a scientific law; but if the universe began to exist, then it means it wasn't by law

Question 36

Scientific Arguments

Answer 36

a. expansion of the universe and big bang theory. Too much we don't know. Perhaps htere was a universe before this one. Afer all, waht the kalam wants to prove is that "the whole of physical reality" b. argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Again we don't know enough about the early universe. Best we can do is say entropy had a beginning, not that the universe had a beginning

Question 37

Philosophical Arguments

Answer 37

A. Impossibility of an actual infinite. why not infinite hotel if God would mae it? Absurdities do not follow HH's infinity, but from what happens when infinity is combined with other features of hotel. e.g. movement of guests. The past like mathematical objects, are not 'moveable' . Hence HH is irrelevant to beginningless past. Analogy of a possiblity of endless future

Question 38

Philosophical Argument Part 2

Answer 38

the impossiblity of traversing an infinite past. Morriston says depends on what you mean by an infinite. If you mean starting from now and finishing, yes. But if you mean than an infinitely number of events has ocurred, then no good reason has been given to show that it is impossible. Just becasue we don't have a good reason why somehting is so does not mean that it is immpossible to be so

Question 39

Problems with Premise 1 of Kalam Cosmological Argument: Everything that begins to exist has a cause --Moriston

Answer 39

A. Morriston doubts it has a universal appricability. It certainly applies to ordinary objects that we discover the world, since we have the context of the natural order. But we believe based on our experience and not on esome universal principle we don't com eto know apart form our experience. But there is no comparable context for the whole natural order.

Question 40

Problems with Premise 1 of Kalam Cosmological Argument: Everything that begins to exist has a cause -- Craig

Answer 40

but can't Craig say that our constant experience of causality is enough is enough to accept the principle that we don't need some universal principle? Morriston thinks this works against Craig's argument.

Question 41

Some things our experience teaches us?

Answer 41

material things always come from material things nothing is ever created out of nothing nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time every event is preceded in time by other events all persons are embodied

Question 42

Quick summary of versions of design arguments

Answer 42

there are many sets of design arguments, some of which single a particular type of design. To understand this, we will distinguish just two types of design, though there could be others

Question 43

Design as purpose - -William Paley - -Thomas Aquinas

Answer 43

Paley's watchmaker argument-- analogy | Aquinas argument from final causality -- goal directed activity in all things e.g. acorns become oak trees

Question 44

Design as Regularity

Answer 44

Richard Swinburne (1934- )

Question 45

David Hume's Critique of design argumennt | Hume's 8 points (Point 1)

Answer 45

We can only infer what is necessary to explain an effect. Inferring an all-powerful, immaterial, unchanging, perfect Creator of all that exists is takes us beyond the evidence. So, even if the universe appears designed, it doesn't get us to God.

Question 46

Opposition to Hume's 8 points | point 1

Answer 46

Hume certainly has a point. We shouldn't postulate more than what is necessary to explain the universe. But is theist really doing that? (Go through the stages: finite, bodily, destructible, able to design a universe)

Question 47

David Hume's Critique of design argumennt | Hume's 8 points (Point 2)

Answer 47

The universe is unique. You can only use an analogy or things that are similar or empirically experienced

Question 48

Opposition to Hume's 8 Points -- Point 2

Answer 48

The universe is indeed unique. But everything is unique in some way. All parts of the universe can be compared with each other, as we in fact do , and yet many of these parts are radically unlike other parts in their natures. e. g. meteors, tachyons, butterflies, galaxies supernovas and the Kardashian family. - - in other words, the universe must share properties with the things in it! Also, in terms of empirical experience there are many things that scientists postulate that they have not directly experience, and use analogies to make their point.

Question 49

David Hume's Critique of design argumennt | Hume's 8 points (Point 3)

Answer 49

but even if there is a "designer" of the universe , would not it need an explanation for its existence? why not an infnite regress?

Question 50

Oppositon to Hume's 8 Points -- Point 3

Answer 50

Again, Hume makes a good poing. But it doesn't see decisive. After all, you don't need to explain a thing's designer in order to show it is designed. Second, if you have a good explataion for something that doesn' t mean that you can't use it if you don't have an explanation for the explanation.

Question 51

David Hume's Critique of design argumennt | Hume's 8 points (Point 4)

Answer 51

all known designers are physical being.s. Why not the creator of the universe? So, the most we can infer some sort of super human being.

Question 52

Opposition to Hume's 8 Points -- Point 4

Answer 52

Hume's right in terms of our experience, but that does not necessarily defeat the argument. Go back to the response to 1.

Question 53

David Hume's Critique of design argumennt | Hume's 8 points (Point 6)

Answer 53

The universe seems to more like an organism than a machine. But defenders of the design argument compare to the universe to machine.

Question 54

Opposition to Hume's 8 Point -- Point 6

Answer 54

Organisms still provide evidence for design, even though they are not machines. (there's more than one type of design). Example of intentionally ignorant person

Question 55

David Hume's Critique of design argumennt | Hume's 8 points (Point 5)

Answer 55

Why not postulate more than one designer? Since many things in ordinary life are accomplished by teams, why not the universe?

Question 56

Opposition to Hume's 8 Points -- Point 5

Answer 56

Ockham's razor. Why postulate for than one designer if just one will do?

Question 57

David Hume's Critique of design argumennt | Hume's 8 points (Point 7)

Answer 57

It is possible that the order in the universe is the result of chance and randomnes

Question 58

Opposition to Hume's 8 points -- Point 7

Answer 58

But order and randomness require a background order in order to make sense eg. rolling dice, monkeys at the typewriter giving us Shakespeare.

Question 59

David Hume's Critique of design argumennt | Hume's 8 points (Point 8)

Answer 59

There is much disorder and chaos in the universe

Question 60

Opposition to Hume's 8 points -- Point 8

Answer 60

True enough, but the disorder makes sense because there is order that helps one come to the belief how things ought to be. Doesn't that require design?