Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

7 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
criticism of argument:
the attempt to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with the idea that God exists and is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good
Argument from Design (support)
a.)Paley’s Argument from Analogy:
-a watch is complex, and was made by an intelligent designer (humans)
-a flower is also complex, and therefore must have been made by an intelligent designer
•Surprise Principle: the Design hypothesis is better supported than the random hypothesis
Argument from Design (criticism)
b.)Hume’s Criticism: Analog isn’t actually that similar to the target
-watches are metal, and flowers are not; therefore the analogy is weak

Other hypothesis’:
Theistic: G then E then O
Aesthetic: E then O
Creationism: G then E then O & G then O

Criticisms: If God existed, why didn’t he create beings perfectly adapted to their environments? (e.g. Panda’s thumb)
Answer: God might have simply set the process of evolution in motion and not meddled directly with any and every organism (natural selection and speciation)

E.g. Observation: Leaves turning towards the sun
Intelligent designer, random process, evolutionary process (Surprise Principle)
Cosmological Argument (Criticisms)
Birthday Fallacy
1.)Everyone has a birthday
2.)Therefore, there is a single birthday that everyone has
- Events don’t necessarily have the same first cause as everything else; only shows that there is at least one first cause
- There is no reason that the chain of causes can’t go infinitely into the past
* leads to the chaos theory: does every sensible event have a cause?
Argument from Evil (criticism)
Criticisms: What is the definition of evil? (natural and moral) What is considered too much evil?
Theodicy: an attempt to explain why an all PKG God would allow evil
Defense: simply holds that we don’t have a good reason to believe the premises is true
a.)Why do we need to build our souls? Why couldn’t God create us with strong ones?
b.)Suffering doesn’t always make the sufferer or observer a stronger or better person
e.g. Hitler and the Holocaust, Katrina
* if God exists, he is vastly more intelligent than we humans are; therefore, there are reasons for the evils in the world beyond what we can think of
Ontological Argument (criticism)
1.)Lost Island = there must be something wrong with the ontological argument because if it weren’t I could prove the existence of a perfect island by a similar a priori argument
a.)A P-island is by definition the greatest possible island
b.)An island that fails to exist in the actual world (while existing in other possible worlds) is less perfect than an island that exists in all possible worlds
c.)Hence, a P-island exists necessarily

1.)Existence is not a property (i.e. to say something exists is not to attribute a property to an object; rather it is to say that there is something in the real world that a given concept applies to)
1.)showing that existence is part of the definition of X does not show X exists
2.)mistake to talk about the same thing existing “in the understanding” and “in reality.” What is in the understanding are concepts, not things; what is in reality are things, not concepts.
Wager Argument
1.)oversimplified options and assumptions about God’s nature
e.g. If I believe in God but do bad things, what then?
2.) only applies to people who assign a non zero probability to God’s existence
3.) belief is not an action one can voluntarily perform
4.) should beliefs be based on practical/prudential considerations even if there is no way to know one way or the other, OR should my beliefs be based only on evidential considerations?