Philosophy Exam 1 Flashcards
(33 cards)
Problem of Evil Argument Premises
- If God exists, then he is all-good and all-powerful.
- If God is all-good then he would want to eliminate all suffering.
- If god is all-powerful then he could eliminate all suffering.
- Therefore, if god exists there would be no suffering.
- but there is suffering.
- therefore, god does not exist.
Free Will Objection Version 1
A world where people have free will is better than a world without free will.
Who made the problem of evil argument?
Mackie
Free will objection version 2
a world where people have the ability to make morally significant choices is better than having free will and no significant choices.
Suffering
by natural causes: say it allows for charity but charity wouldnt be necessary if there was no suffering.
innocents: good from child suffering outweighs the bad but what about the children that dont have any good come.
objections to the problem of evil
- punishing those who suffer
- no good without evil
- an evil all-powerful being
- free will objection
Testimony
knowledge you gain from other people
anti-reductionism
you can sometimes be justified in believing a proposition based on testimony alone
problems with anti-reductionism
Gullibility
reductionism
you also have to have other good reasons to believe the proposition in question
(talk about children)
Fricker
She stated you need to know that someone is credible in order to believe testimony
Lackey
talked about gullibility
Aquinas’ Causal Argument premises
- at least some things come into existence
- whatever comes into existence had to be caused to come into existence.
- an infinite number of past causes is impossible
- therefore, there was a first cause.
Causal argument not sound
third premise fails. respond by saying there can be an infinite number of past causes.
Aquinas’ argument for third premise
if you take away a cause, you take away its effects. if there were an infinite number of past causes, there would be no first cause, and its effects would never happen. but we exist so there cant be an infinite number of past causes.
problem with argument for third premise
begs the question. uses conclusion to prove argument for third premise.
Descartes and the skeptical challenge
tried to be more skeptical then any skeptic ever was. posed question to himself and tried to answer it.
- i know that p only if i can rule out every possibility that not-p.
- I cant rule out every possibility that not-p.
- therefore, i dont know that p.
first skeptical possibility
sense deception: our senses have deceived us in the past, therefore they could be deceiving us now.
Descartes’ response to the first skeptical possibility
In order to know they have deceived us, they had to have been right at one point.
second skeptical possibility
dreaming: you cant rule out the possibility that you are only dreaming about that p, so if you are only dreaming, then not-p is possible.
Descartes’ response to the second skeptical possibility
colors, shapes, and quantities exist in all our dreams, therefore they must be real.
third skeptical possibility
evil demon: i cant rule out the possibility that an evil demon is making me believe that p, so i dont know p.
Response to the third possibility
cant deny that i am a thinking thing. even if he tries to make me doubt i am thinking, i am still thinking.
Clifford’s argument premises
- if the truth of a belief could matter to other people, you shouldnt have that belief without good reason.
- the truth of any belief could matter to other people.
- therefore, you shouldnt have any belief without good reason.