Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Apologetics > Unit 2 > Flashcards

Unit 2 Flashcards

(106 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

The Argument from Desire Premise 1

A

Every natural, Innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

The Argument from Desire premise 1 Expansion

A

(a) Innate desires are natural, universal human desires such as food, drink, rest, sex, knowledge, friendship, and beauty.
(b) The opposite are shunned (starvation, loneliness…)
(c) However, mere external desires may not be realized.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

The Argument from Desire Premise 2

A

But there exist in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

The Argument from Desire Premise 2 Expansion

A

(a) This premise requires honest introspection.

(b) The history of mankind argues strongly that there is a deep seated desire that the “world” cannot satisfy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

The Argument from Desire Premise 3

A

Thus, there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The Argument from Desire Premise 4

A

This something is what people call “God” and “life with the God forever.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

The Argument from Desire Premise 4 Expansion

A

(a) Our most basic need points to a transcendent God who alone satisfies that need!
(b) All humans have three basic needs all of which can be satisfied in Christ.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

three basic needs all of which can be satisfied in Christ.

A

(i) Objective meaning in life.
(ii) Loving union with a reality that transcends us (cf. needs for forgiveness, reconciliation, and moral improvement).
(iii) Understanding of self and the world (Christian WV does this the best).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Lewis Quote from Mere Christianity

A

“… If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Argument from Desire Criticism 1

A

How can I know that every innate desire has a real object unless such objects can be empirically identified?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Argument from Desire Criticism 1 rebuttal

A

(a) Objection presupposes empiricism—we know only by sense perception and then by generalizing by induction.
(b) But, when there is a real connection between the nature of the subject and the nature of the predicate, we know the truth of a proposition by understanding, not mere induction.
(c) The facts of nature—for every innate/natural desire there is a corresponding real object.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Argument from Desire Criticism 2

A

Some say they don’t harbor any desires for anything beyond this world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Argument from Desire Criticism 2 rebuttal

A

(a) I am not happy, but I’m confident with a little more of this and that I will be!
(i) This experiment has failed 100% so far!
(b) I am perfectly happy now!
(i) This is either idiocy or dishonesty!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

The Ontological Argument

A

Truly understanding the notion of a greatest conceivable being entails seeing that such a Being must exist.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Premise 1

A

Uses Leibniz’ insight that the concept of the “greatest conceivable being” is coherent and that there is a possible world in which God exists.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Premise 2

A

the semantics of possible worlds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Premise 2 Expansion

A

(a) A “possible world” is a description of a way reality might be.
(b) A possible world is a conjunction which comprises every proposition or its contradictory, so that it yields a maximal description of reality.(c) Only one of these descriptions will be composed of conjunctions all of which are true—the actual world.
(d) The proposition Kerry is the president of the US is false in the actual world, but could be true of a maximal description of another possible world.
(e) To say that God exists in some possible world is to say that the proposition God exists is comprised by some maximal description of reality.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Premise 3

A

Plantinga conceives of God as a being who is “Maximally excellent” in every possible world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Premise 3 Expansion

A

(a) Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
(b) A being who has maximal excellence in every possible world would have maximal greatness.
(c) Plantinga: There is a possible world where a maximally great being exists.
(d) Thus, this Being must exist in a maximally excellent way in every possible world, including the actual world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Formal Outline

A

(a) It is possible that a maximally great being (O3 God) exists.
(b) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being in some possible world.
(c) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
(d) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
(e) If a maximally great being exists.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Objection 1

A

Is the first premise coherent? What warrant exist for thinking “It is possible that a maximally great being exists?”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Objection 1 Refute

A

(a) The difference between metaphysical and merely epistemic possibility.
(b) For the OA to fail, the concept of maximally great being must be incoherent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Objection 2

A

The construction of parodies: “ a most perfect island” or “a necessarily existent lion.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Objection 2 Refute

A

(a) The properties that go to make up maximal excellence have intrinsic maximum values, whereas the excellent-making properties of thing like islands do not.
(b) Omniscience is the property of knowing only and all truths, while islands can vary in particulars based on taste.
(c) A maximally excellent being is immaterial and transcendent, whereas the nonexistence of lions is conceivable in any number of possible worlds.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Objection 3
Appeal to a quasi-maximal great being: it is intuitively coherent to conceive of a quasi-maximally great being (e.g. one whose maximal greatness does not include knowledge of truths about future contingents).
26
Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Objection 3 Refute
(a) But maximal greatness is logically incompatible with quasi-maximal greatness because maximal greatness includes omnipotence and the power to refrain from creating and thus there are worlds where nothing other than the maximally great being exists. (b) Thus if a maximal great being is possible, a quasi maximal greatness is impossible.
27
Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Objection 4
Intuitions unreliable: Our intuitions about modality are a unreliable guide.
28
Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Objection 4 Refute
(a) If after careful consideration we still find it compelling we are within our rational rights to accept the OA. (b) A posteriori considerations support the a priori idea of maximal greatness.
29
Leibniz’s cosmological argument Premise 1
Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
30
Leibniz’s cosmological argument Premise 1 Objection
the principle of sufficient reason is too strong to be plausible.
31
Leibniz’s cosmological argument Premise 1 Expansion
a. But one ultimately comes to some explanatory stopping point which is a brute contingency. b. A precludes things which exist inexplicably.
32
Leibniz’s cosmological argument Premise 2
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
33
Leibniz’s cosmological argument Premise 2 Expansion
1. The atheist implicitly recognizes this. | 2. It includes all physical reality and abstract objects.
34
Leibniz’s cosmological argument Premise 3
The universe is an existing thing.
35
Leibniz’s cosmological argument Premise 3 Expansion
It is as much a thing as anything in it (e.g. tree a globe).
36
Leibniz’s cosmological argument Premise
Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
37
A conceptualist argument for God’s existence Premise 1
Abstract objects, such as numbers and propositions, are either independently existing realities or else concepts in some mind.
38
A conceptualist argument for God’s existence Premise 1 Expansion
Assumes rejection of nominalism.
39
A conceptualist argument for God’s existence Premise 2
Abstract objects are not independently existing realities.
40
A conceptualist argument for God’s existence Premise 3
Abstract objects are concepts in some mind, then an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists.
41
A conceptualist argument for God’s existence Premise 3 Expansion
Abstract objects cannot be grounded in a merely contingent human mind because there are too many such objects and some exist necessarily.
42
A conceptualist argument for God’s existence Premise 4
Therefore an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exist.
43
The CA leads to a
metaphysically necessary being which is the ground of existence for concrete reality.
44
The MA leads a
metaphysically necessary locus of moral values.
45
Conceptualist argument leads to an
omniscient, metaphysically necessary intelligence as the foundation of abstract objects
46
It is simpler to posit one
metaphysically necessary infinite omniscient, morally perfect being than three such separate beings.
47
There is good reason to believe
that a maximally great being exists.
48
The theistic argument are like
the reinforcing links in a coast of chain mail.
49
The OA encapsulates
the thrust of all the arguments together to show that Supreme Being exists.
50
Blaise Pascal
(1623-1662) was French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist.
51
The External Test.
Few references to Jesus in non-Christian literature.
52
Christ documents from the 2nd century and later.
(i) Novelistic accounts of improbable marvels (e.g. Gospel of Thomas). (ii) Gnostic cosmology presented as post-resurrection teaching of Jesus (e.g. Sophia of Jesus Christ). (iii) Remarkably different from first- century Christian writings. (iv) Either the historian accepts the gospels and sees the “gnostic Jesus” as heretical, or he alleges an “orthodox” suppression of the authentic Jesus.
53
Archeological evidence affirms the historical picture of the gospels.
(i) Recent excavations have uncovered Capernium, Bethsaida and Chrazim ( Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 10:12-16). (ii) Herod’s slaughter (matt 2) is consistent with the known facts of his character. (iii) The Pool of Bethesda with its 5 porticos has been discovered 40 feet underground (John 5:1-15). (iv) Gospels details of the crucifixion of Christ are confirmed by the discovery of a crucified body from about A.D. 70.
54
Why the lack of evidence from non-Christian sources?
(1) For Romans, Jesus was a nobody. (2) Jesus would be noticed only through the success of the Christianity. (3) It is logical that our knowledge of Christian origins is dependent on Christ
55
The Bibliographic Test
The NT has better MSS support than any other ancient document.
56
The internal test
Do the documents claim to be actual history written by eyewitnesses?
57
The Presence of Eyewitnesses
Eyewitnesses lie behind much of the NT and its sources
58
Arguments Supporting Eyewitness Influence.
(i) A document should be assumed trustworthy unless it is shown to be unreliable. (ii) The NT writers had little to gain by lying and much to lose (cf. 2 Cor 11:23-29; James, Stephen). (iii) There is an absence of contrary eyewitnesses. (iv) If the NT picture of Jesus was not based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, how could a consistent tradition about him ever been formed?
59
Objections to Eyewitness Influence 1
After the experience of “Easter event”—a powerful, subjective feeling of the presence of Christ after Jesus’ death—the church lost interest in the biographical details of the historical Jesus and focused only on the Abiding sense of Christ among them as articulated by contemporary creative prophetic sayings.
60
Objections to Eyewitness Influence 1 Response
1. There is no evidence of prophets in the early church who uttered “sayings of Jesus” (contra gnostic Odes of Solomon 42:6, 110-150 A.D.). 2. The early church understood prophecies as gifts of the HS and not utterances of the historical Jesus. 3. Rev 1:17-20 are words of the risen Lord. 4. The Gospels writers are interested in key historical biographical details of Christ’s life. 5. Intense interest in the historical facts of Jesus is only natural.
61
Objections to Eyewitness Influence 2
Ancient people were less interested in facts than we are today.
62
Objections to Eyewitness Influence 2 Response
1. Many ancient historians saw the importance of accurate reporting 2. Ancient historians were not as critical and precise as modern historians, but the question “Did it really happen?” made sense to them. 3. NT writers show a concern to preserve historical facts accurately.
63
The Gospels are the written results of a rabbinic process of handing the tradition which preserved its accuracy.
(i) Jesus’ relation to his disciples was as rabbi to pupils. (ii) The Gospels arose primarily in a Jewish milieu. (iii) This view explains the role of the Apostle as eyewitness preserver of the d) It explains the NT writers view of handling received tradition
64
The rabbinic practices cited were late (A.D. 200).
1. These rabbinic practices were influenced by cultural and religious practice in NT times. 2. When the synoptics are compared there is greater word for word agreement in the words of Jesus than in the incidental details of the surrounding narrative.
65
One cannot draw parallels between rabbinic and Christian tradition.
BUT Jewish culture was the womb out of which Christianity was born.
66
Marks of Historicity in the Gospel materials
1. The form of Jesus’ sayings 2 Other Distinctive Features of Jesus’ Sayings 3. The Presence of Irrelevant Material 5. The Lack of Relevant Material 6. Counterproductive Features
67
The form of Jesus’ sayings:
a. That many are in poetic and easily memorable form does not mean they aren’t authentic. b. The sayings present an internal unity and intentionally which points to a single mind.
68
Other Distinctive Features of Jesus’ Sayings
i. Jesus use of amen and Abba and the 64 instances of threefold sayings is unique. ii. His use of how much more, which of you, and disciple are not duplicated in Paul, Peter, and others. iii. Aramaisms and indications of an Aramaic original point back to Jesus’ actual words. iv. Jesus’ use of parables.
69
The Presence of Irrelevant Material
a. Some Gospel material is irrelevant to issues the church of A.D. 50-90 would have faced. b. Jesus’ attitude of favor to Israel and the phrases the kingdom of God and the son of Man. c. Also Jesus’ controversies with the Pharisees and his comments on Corban practices.
70
The Lack of Relevant Material
a. If the Gospels were shaped to meet the needs of early church, how come they don’t include sayings on circumcision, charismatic gifts, baptism, food laws, Gentile mission, church government, and church state relations? b. Why weren’t powerful Pauline utterances folded into the sayings of Jesus?
71
Counterproductive Features
a. Jesus’ attitudes toward legalism, fasting, divorce, sinner sand women were radical and against the grain. b. Jesus’ displays of anger, his baptism, his death by crucifixion, and the fact he was from Nazareth. c. The disciples are presented in an unvarnished manner showing their unbelief, density, and cowardice. d. The Time Factor
72
Expansion of Christianity
a. crucified in A.D. 33. b. began in a Jewish culture somewhat influenced by Hellenism and eventually penetrated Gentile culture. c. Hellenistic culture outside of Palestine was not significantly influenced by Jewish thought forms. d. Thus, if saying of Jesus or Christological title showing Hellenistic influence is found in the NT it does not necessarily mean that it derives from a predominantly Gentile church. e. Furthermore, if a saying or title translates easily from NT Greek back into Semitic thought forms, it is likely to have originated with Jesus.
73
Paul’s Letters General dating
I. Most historians agree that we possess from seven to thirteen letters of Paul, most from about 49-65. II. These letters reveal a high Christology (Jesus is God) within 16-20 years after the crucifixion. III. No evolution of Christological thought is detectable. IV. A fully divine, miracle-working Jesus was not a later development.
74
Creeds and Hymns
i. Pauline letters include pre-Pauline creeds and hymns which show features of Hebrew thought forms originating in the Jewish beginnings of the Church. ii. A conviction of the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ is present in the 1st decade of Christianity. iii. Galatians 1 and 2: Paul believed in a risen, divine Jesus within a few years after Jesus’ death!
75
1 Corinthians 16:22 (ca. 55-56)
a. Paul writes to a Gentile congregation using the Aramaic marantha addressing Jesus as God. b. Reveals a high Christology and Jewish origins of a Christian phrase likely in common use by Paul’s visit to Corinth in 50.
76
The Gospels
a. Standard dating assumes an anti-supernatural bias against the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. b. Even if these dates are accepted, living eyewitness would have judged the veracity of the Gospels.
77
Reasons to date the Gospels earlier:
i. Assuming Q and Mark predate Matthew and Luke, the key to dating the Gospels is dating Acts. ii. Dating of Acts is at 62-64.
78
Jerusalem is the center of activity in Acts,
yet no mention of the war or fall of Jerusalem in 70?
79
The martyrdoms of James and Peter
are not mentioned in Acts though key figures in Acts.
80
Acts deals with issues of importance prior to
the fall of Jerusalem.
81
Miracles,
Winfried Corduan
82
The Point: miracles are not supposed to happen
i. Believers are committed to their possibility and yet are skeptical of any given instance. ii. Despite skepticism, most humans look for and embrace evidence of the supernatural.
83
Miracles are central for Christianity.
i. The religious function of miracles: authentication and ongoing benefit of belonging. ii. Unlike other religions, Christianity is founded upon the miracle of Christ’s resurrection
84
Naturalists,
Atheists and others who deny any supernatural events.
85
Deists,
Accepts God but say it is against His nature to perform miracles and disturb his order of nature
86
Supernaturalists
Pantheists believe that the basic nature of the universe is spiritual and every event is supernatural.
87
Corduan
Beware of Enabling the Skeptic! i. Avoid defending miracles by making them appear not-so-miraculous. ii. The more you do so, the more you concede your case. iii. Some events are so unusual that we know they are divine miracles.
88
Miracles and the Issue of Preconceptions/Worldviews
a. Believers are predisposed to consider miracles as possible. b. Skeptics are predisposed to reject the supernatural. c. Neither has the right to assume their standpoint is normative or to insulate themselves from critique. d. Believers do not accept every purported case of miracles, but only those having sufficient evidence to warrant belief.
89
Hume’s Argument
Even if miracles could theoretically occur, reasonable people would deny them because the evidence in their favor can never be sufficient.
90
As a rational person you must decide whether he is mistaken or the laws of nature were actually preempted.
Hume: No matter the evidence for a miracle, a reasonable person will never believe the laws of nature were violated.
91
Hume’s predisposition against miracles “begs the question.”
i. Why always believe a person gave an erroneous report? | ii. Hume’s generalization that we have never known the laws of nature to fail, is precisely the issue in question.
92
Believers acknowledge that the laws of nature take precedence in our daily lives,
but claim occasions when the weight of evidence favors a miraculous event
93
Flew’s Argument
Christians do not allow any weight of evidence to count against their belief in God’s love.
94
Flew employs the exact strategy for miracles
i. No historical account could ever be a legitimate source for information on supernatural events. ii. It is fundamentally incorrect to allow for the supernatural because it is contrary to the laws of science.
95
Flew's claim is completely un-falsifiable
I. Does he presume to know all experience? II. He is adding evidence, not weighing it. III. What of those who have experienced miracles? IV. The assumption of absolute uniformity is merely an anti supernaturalistic bias. V. He is arguing probability.
96
Recognizing a miracle
1) The event defies common explanations (impossible or extremely improbable). 2) The event occurs in a framework directed toward the supernatural.
97
First- order miracles
events which supersede or violate the basic nature of reality
98
Second-order miracles
Highly improbably events
99
The purposes of miracles
1) Evidence to lead people to belief in God 2) Reinforces an established belief 3) The Case for Christ’s Resurrection
100
There is substantial agreement that Jesus’ Disciples thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.
(1) Paul’s eyewitness experience (2) Ancient tradition that declares the resurrection (3) The Blessing of Paul’s Gospel by the three senior apostles in Jerusalem who also were eyewitnesses (4) Paul testified that the other apostles preached the same message. (5) A majority of critical scholars accept that the speeches of Acts represent the earliest Christian preaching and the risen Christ is central in the message. (6) James, Jesus’ brother, was an unbeliever, yet later is the pastor of the Jerusalem church.
101
A priori objection
miracles do not occur.
102
Agnosticism
a. Smacks of rejecting the possibility of resurrection before weighing the evidence. b. The agnostic bears the burdeb of discovering a cause for the disciples’ faith. c. All the evidence supports a visual claim d. Naturalistic accounts must “fill in the blank” and describe what really happened. e. Most scholars concede that the weight of the historical facts for the resurrection crushes all proposed theories.
103
The most popular naturalistic response is that the disciples saw hallucinations.
a. Hallucinations are private experiences yet groups of people claim to see Jesus. b. The disciples’ despair was not the proper frame of mind to see hallucinations. c. Too many different times, places and personalities for the idea of hallucination to be credible. d. Jesus’ body would still have been in the tomb! e. Hallucinations rarely transform lives. f. Both Paul James had no desire to see Jesus.
104
The principle argued
Impressive evidence+ failure of alternative= reality of the resurrection.
105
The Uniqueness of the disciples’ transformations
1. The disciples’ radical transformations are accepted by all 2. The disciples’ conversion was qualitatively different from other conversion experiences 3. Many have been willing to die for their beliefs, but nobody dies for what they truly know is a lie!
106
Additional circumstantial evidence
a. There is a continuity and coherence between the resurrection and the entirety of Jesus’ Life b. The resurrection fulfills in detail OT Messianic prophecies of the Suffering servant and Kingly Son of David. c. The novelty of the belief argues for its authenticity d. The existence of the church argues for the resurrection.

Apologetics (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions