Philosophy Exam 1 (Part 2)

Front 1

kalam COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Back 1

"first cause" by Aquinas:
a.) Every sensible event has a cause
b.) The cause has to be earlier than the event that it causes
c.) Chain of causes can't go on forever/infinetly
Therefore, there must be a first cause
--leads to the birthday fallacy

Front 2

Hilberts Hotel

Back 2

Hilbert’s Hotel is a (hypothetical) hotel with an infinite number of rooms, each one of which is occupied. The hotel gives rise to a paradox: the hotel is full, and yet it has vacancies.

http://www.logicalparadoxes.info/hilberts-hotel/

Front 3

Evidence that the universe had a beginning

Back 3

An actual infinite cannot exist.
A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Front 4

Why must there have been a personal creator?

Back 4

It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.

Front 5

Cyclical Universe Objection and Reply

Back 5

"A cyclical theory of history explains things as well as your argument. A universe is born, it lives, and then it dies; this happens over and over again. And such theories abound, such as the recurring Big Bang-Big Crunch theory, and the Eastern Mystical Samsara."

Reply: History seems to repeat itself in the periodic assertion of the adequacy of the theory of cyclical universes. Well, if universes live and die one after the other, the question remains whether the past is of infinite duration. The objection only asserts that time in the past is infinite using the language of some well-known hypotheses. But to merely contradict steps four and five of this argument is not a way to argue logically. What proves that the cyclical theory is even possible? Where is the resulting absurdity of an infinite past dealt with? The past could not have been eternal, for the reasons given.

Front 6

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT/paley's watchmaker argument

Back 6

Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3. Therefore: It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose.
4. However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
5. Therefore: There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

Front 7

Argument from Analogy

Back 7

nondeductive inference in which one infers that a target object T has some characteristic on the ground that T is similar to some other object A (the analog) and A is known to possess that characteristic

Front 8

THE FINE TUNING ARGUMENT

Back 8

Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants, and the beginning state of the Universe. To explain the present state of the universe, even the best scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature and the beginning state of the Universe have extremely precise values.

Front 9

Prime Principle of Confirmation

Back 9

Something counts as evidence for one hypothesis rather than another when it is more probably true under one hypothesis than the other

The greater the difference in probability, the more it counts as evidence

Front 10

It is very unlikely that a life permitting universe came about by chance.

Back 10

?

Front 11

Surprise Principle

Back 11

a principle governing abductive inference; an observation O strongly favors one hypothesis (H1) over another (H2):
a.)If H1 were true, you would expect O to be true.
b.)If H2 were true, you would expect O to be false

Front 12

Example of Surprise Principle

Back 12

If I am really strong, then I can crumple this piece of paper.
I can crumple this piece of paper.
Therefore, I am really strong (expected)

Example 2:

Observation: Person is carrying a backpack.

H1: person is running away.

H2: person is going to their class.

Due to the surprise principle, if H1 is true I would be less surprised to see the observation if H2 is true.

Front 13

The More Fundamental Law Objection

Back 13

Could be that there is a more fundamental law that requires all the parameters of physics to have the values they do have

So these life-permitting values not improbable but necessary given this law

Front 14

Other Forms of Life Objection

Back 14

?

Front 15

The Anthropic Objection

Back 15

a. If laws of nature not fine tuned, we would not be here to comment on this, so fine tuning not surprising or improbably, but follows from fact we exist
Collins reply:
b. Firing squad analogy
i. If 50 sharp shooters pointing their rifles at me all missed, it would not make sense for me to conclude that it happened by chance (that it was not improbable), since I would not be commenting on this fact unless they had missed

Make more sense to suppose they were not trying to kill me or some other non-chance hypothesis.

Front 16

The Multiverse Objection

Back 16

?

Front 17

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Back 17

?

Front 18

Anselm’s version of the ontological argument

Back 18

?

Front 19

Gaunillo’s objection (the most perfect island) and Anselm’s reply

Back 19

?

Front 20

Kant’s objection

Back 20

?

Front 21

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Back 21

?

Front 22

The Sandkings Story

Back 22

?

Front 23

Theodicy

Back 23

a vindication of God's justice in tolerating the existence of evil.

Front 24

Evil

Back 24

?

Front 25

The difference between moral and natural evil

Back 25

?

Front 26

The Deductive Version of the Problem of Evil

Back 26

?

Front 27

Will Theodicy

Back 27

?

Front 28

The probabilistic/inductive version of the Problem of Evil

Back 28

?

Front 29

The difference between the conclusions of the deductive and inductive versions of the problem of evil

Back 29

?

Front 30

The cognitive limitations defense

Back 30

?

Front 31

The Seeability Condition

Back 31

?

Front 32

Hick’s soul-making theodicy

Back 32

?

Front 33

FAITH AND REASON

Back 33

?

Front 34

Pascals Wager

Back 34

(?) "It's in your best interest to believe God exists."

Front 35

The formula for expected value

Back 35

?

Front 36

Prudential argument (definition)

Back 36

?

Front 37

Paley's Watchmaker Argument

Back 37

watch : watch maker :: universe : universe maker

He argues just as the function and complexity of a watch implies a watch-maker, so likewise the function and complexity of the universe implies the existence of a universe-maker.