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
Reading...
Front

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

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/64

Click to flip

64 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Ontological Argument

overview
God's a perfect being
-must hold all positive attributes (including the positive attribute of existence)
--->so god posseses existence & exists
First in Time
[cosmological argument]

overview
we can't count to infinity
-so if past time were infinite there would be no now
---so past time had to have a beginning
---->something outside of time must have created time
---->GOD created time
First in Being
[cosmological argument]

overview
in infinite time every possibility would have occured
-that means everything would stop existing at one point
--since this didn't happen something must have caused the sustaining of our continued existence
-GOD sustains everythings existence
Teleological Argument

overview
since machines display order & complexity & are designed by humans
and the universe displays order & complexity
-it must have a designer as well
-the designer of the universe is GOD
Makie

basic argument
"triiemma"
-to say that all three are true is a logical contradiction
[1)god is all powerful; 2)god is all good; 3)evil exists]
Mackie's logically adequate solutions to problem of evil

(list 3)
-solved by denying one of three propositions[if 2 are true the 3rd is false] (either denying that god is all good, all powerful, or that evil exists)

1)god has limited goodness
2)god has limited power
3)evil doesn't really exist / evil is an illusion

-beleives religious beleifs are IRRATIONAL == parts of the arguments are inconsistent with other parts
-->even if say they deny 1/3 they beleive it somewhere else in the argument
Mackie's fallacious solutions to the problem of evil

(list 3)
-saying that all 3 propositions are true ---(but in the process of explaining them they end up rejecting one-don't defend themselves adequately)

1)good can't exist w/o evil (they're necessary counterparts)
2)the world is better with some evil & with the virtues that result than w/o evil & w/o virtues [the virtue defense]
3)evil is due to the misuse of human freewill [freewill defense]
Mackie's Critism of:

1)for goodness to exist evil must exist
[ARGUMENT FOR: is that good and evil must exist in relation to eachother -necessary counterparts- like taller can't exist w/o smaller.
-1-epistemilogically necessary - must have knowledge of one to have knowledge of the other
-2-metaphysical necessary counterparts- can't exist w/o eachother]

MACKIE'S CRITICISM:
-1-even if we didn't know the world was good God still could have made it good
-2-Good & Evil are independently measurable of eachother. They don't have to exist in equal proportions. an All Good God would have made amount of good much larger than amount of evil.
Mackie's Critism of:

2)the world is better with some evil + virtues than no evil & no virtues [VIRTUE DEFENSE]
(ARGUMENT: if there were never an occasion to be afraid then there would never be an opportunity of showing courage)

mackie's levels of goods & evils:
-level 1-pleasure & pain
*pain leads to
-level 2-virtue & vices
*vices lead to
-level 3
*leads to INFINITY

-for vices to be justified there must be a higher level good to justify it (but would lead to that level evil and to infinity)

--you'd never have a good w/o a corresponding evil
so evil is not justified ever
Mackie's Critism of:

3)Evil is due to misuse of human freewill [FREEWILL DEFENSE]
(Argument for: god wanted some creatures to enter into rela relationship w/ god so we could freely choose to accept/reject it)

Mackie's Criticism:
-god could have allowed for men always freely choosing good--if not it is inconsistent with god being omnipotent & wholly good
-doesn't make sense bc of chance
Hick's 3 different theodicies
1)Augustinian Theodicy
2)Irenaean Theodicy
3)Process Theodicy
1)Augustinian Theodicy

-in Hick's article
-gave christian interpretation of plato's theory
-take scripture seriously -not literally

:::there is a GREAT CHAIN OF BEING:::
God--
Angels--
Humans <transition between spiritual & physical realm>
==========Free will ends=========
mammals
reptiles...etc
--everything is created perfect in respective level
--humans used free will badly (beginning w/adam&eve

free will defense........
:::MORAL EVIL::: due to misuse of freewill (suffering caused by bad choices)
:::NATURAL EVIL::: punishment for moral evil (floods earthquakes etc)

-god is all powerful and all good... bc of our own sin evil came into play (god created perfection at first)
2)Irenaean Theodicy

-in Hick's article
-hick's own view
-adopted from st. ireneaus [we were created in god's image & likeness]

-->HICK ADDS: creation didn't occur all at once but in 2 stages:
STAGE 1)god creates natural order & places us in it with free will
STAGE2)we learn to use of free will correctly so we can become true sons & daughters ---become good moral people

2 positions we need to accept for irenaean theory to work:
-1-goodness we achieve by struggling is much better than goodness given to us (that we were created w/)..then WE are responsible for our own goodness
-2-for us to be truly free we're created at an epistemic distance from god...
so we have a choice in beleiving/not beleiving...if god showed himself to us we wouldn't have a real choice

DEFENDS MORAL EVIL:
free will defense - must learn to use it correctly

DEFENDS NATURAL EVIL:
virtue defense ---natural laws provide consequences (just people suffer so we learn sympathy/empathy)
3)Process Theodicy

-in Hick's article
-god didn't create universe -- god + universe always existed together

-everything is constantly changing through time
-past is gone-no longer exists
-future isn't here-doesn't yet exist
-*the only part of time that exists is THE NOW. the "Actual Entities"
-you're now somewhat determined by what you were then (you wanted possibilities then to be actual now)
-power is relative to awareness (coffee mug exists = has power, but not aware = small amt of power)

-god not all powerful, but awareness much higher than ours
god : us :: us : mug

-god can't make us use our power correctly but if we do then we will reach a moment of complete
HARMONY & INTENSITY
(the 2 goods)

-the 2 evils are DISCORD & NEEDLESS TRIVIALITY

-god promotes complexity to increase harmony & intensity
--complexity brings more good & more evil but much more good than evil

FREE WILL DEFENSE FOR MORAL EVIL:
if we follow gods plan = brings good
if we don't follow gods plan = brings evils

-Natural Evils are a BRUTE FACT because god didn't create the universe
PASCAL's basic beleifs
-god is infinite
-our rationality is finite
-we can never know whether god exists or does not exist in this life
-->there's an insufficiency of evidence in both directions

-agnostic view no different than atheist view [neither says prayers - neither are convinced there are reasons for morals]

-set up WAGER
-->set up probabilities for betting outcomes of god's existence
Pascals Wager
1)I beleive god exists *AND* god exists:
INFINITE GAINS

2)I beleive god DOES NOT exists *AND* god exists:
INFINITE LOSS

3)I beleive god exists *AND* god doesn't exist
FINITE LOSS / FINITE GAIN

4)I beleive god DOES NOT exist *AND* god does not exist:
FINITE LOSS / FINITE GAIN

*No smart wagerer would take a chance of infinite loss.
*the only way to avoid infinite loss is to beleive god exists
JAMES -general, no definitions
If you're faced with a genuine option [one that is LIVE, FORCED, & MOMENTOUS]
you are justified in making a passionate decision
(if there's insufficient evidence)

-we have 2 epidtomological duties (to gain beleif):
1)gain truth
2)avoid error

genuine options arise in morals & personal relationships
-you can help create a fact by having faith in a fact

NO POSITION IS ANY MORE RATIONAL THAN THE OTHER
-theists & atheists beleive in hope of gaining truth [put an emphasis on the 1st duty]
-agnostics don't beleive for fear of falling into error
[put an emphasis on the 2nd duty]-->though may miss out on momentous benefits
WHO?:
-god all good, god all powerful, evil exists-cannot all be true at the same time
-sidesteps freewill issue
-atheist
MACKIE
WHO?:

-its a faith commitment
PASCAL
WHO?:

-we have finite intellect & god is infinite --- we'll never know in this life
PASCAL
WHO?:

-beleives there's no rational position in debate
JAMES
&
PASCAL
WHO?:

-says agnosticism only ration position bc insufficient rational evidence for either side
-James is trying to disprove him
CLIFFORD
THEISM

vocab
beleif that god exists

-positive beleif claim
ATHEISM

vocab
beleif that god DOES NOT exist

-positive beleif claim
AGNOSTICISM

vocab
"holds no beleif"
does not beleive that god exists &
does not beleive that god does not exist

-not positive beleif claim
problem with saying:

"I don't beleive god exists"
could be
ATHEISM
or
AGNOSTICISM
IRRATIONAL

vocab
-simply "not rational"

-2kinds:
1) logical contradictions:
impossible to be true
-self contradictory
*Square Triangles
2)Beleifs that are possible but go against experience
-statements themselves not directly contradictory
NON-RATIONAL

vocab
beleifs that don't lend themselves to any rational explanation/investigation
-most theists think of themselves as these

2 Kinds:
(1)SUB-RATIONAL:
-beleifs based on emotions/intuitions (can't explain why..)
(2)SUPRA-RATIONAL
-certain beleifs beyond our rational ability to understand (ex. trinity = 1 god but 3 people in one god)
(ex. jesus was both god & man)
-our rationality is limited
2 PURPOSES FOR ARGUMENTS
1) argument given as rational proof for the truth of a conclusion [through progression of rational steps]
*EX. COGITO*
...so that we can CONCLUDE something

2)to offer rational justification for beleifs already held to be true
(proving something you already beleive)
**the arguments for existence of god**
...want to offer evidence for their beleif to show that there is a rational basis for it.
a priori
belief based on reason alone

(the ontological argument = only one... descartes discounted senses & experiences so could only rely on reason & couldnt be aposteriori)

*before experience
a posteriori
beleif based on experience
(1st in time, 1st in being, teleological)

*beleifs that we get from experience

(ex. 1st in time relies on understanding that time must have a beginning)
"reductio ad absurdum"
"reduced to the absurd"

-both cosmological arguments
-a point is given for sake of discussion
--->later disproven by a contradiction
----->proving initial assumption was false
FINITE v INFINITE
FINITE: limited
INFINITE: w/o bound -- no limit

*difference between two is qualitative, not quantitative
-->not a difference in amount, but a difference in KIND of existence

*you can't accumulate more & more finite to reach the infinnite

*you can't count to infinity
--logically impossible
Deductive Reasoning

vocab
if premisis is true the conclusion must be true

(1. all humans mortal
2. socrates is human
3.therefore socrates is mortal)

*ontological & both cosmological arguments*
Inductive Reasoning

vocab
+ 3 kinds
if premesis is true it give us good reason to think conclusion is true
(doesn't guarantee conclusion, just increases probability)

3KINDS:
1)GENERALIZATIONS:
ex. all swans seen always white
-->conclusion = all swans are white
-->later discovered black swan
2)PREDICTIONS
predict sun will rise tomorrow
3)ANALOGIES
--arguments from comparison
-bc things have similarities then characteristics are common in both
*teleological argument*
DAVIS' criticism of the VIRTUE DEFENSE
the reason that virtues are valuable is bc they can alleviate suffering & increase pleasure
*ex. kicking in the shin to get the virtue of sympathy **god kicked world in the shin**

Davis says pleasure could be an inrinsic good (good by itself) & virtue an instrumental good (lower quality good - only good bc brings about existence of other kind of good)
Intrinsic v Instrumental Goods

[distinction by Davis]
Intrinsic Goods:
-good by themselves
*health*

Instrumental Goods:
-lower quality goods
-only good bc bring about existence of another kind of good
*exercise & eating right only good bc contribute to health
LIVE v DEAD
HYPOTHESIS

distinguished by James
Live Hypothesis:
-willing to consider it - might accept it
-fits in line w/rest of your beleifs
-you have a christian background --Jesus=live hypo

Dead Hypothesis:
-unlikely to accept it
-alien to the rest of your beleifs
-ex. Mahde (messiah of islamic faith) dead hypothesis for someone with christian background
DEFINE Hypothesis

DEFINE Option
HYPOTHESIS: a statement given to either accept or reject

(live or dead according to James)

OPTION: decision between competing hypotheses

(live or dead, forced or avoidable, momentous or trivial-- according to James)
types of OPTIONS

according to James
1)LIVE or DEAD
[option live if both hypo's are live -- option dead if one or both hypo's are dead]

2)FORCED or AVOIDABLE
[forced if the 2 hypo's exhaust all options *come to class or don't come to class* -- avoidable if there is a 3rd choice available *come to class or take a nap* (don't HAVE to do either one)]

3)MOMENTOUS or TRIVIAL
[momentous if a once in a lifetime opportunity or if deciding right now could bring benefits immediately *extending self in friendly matter better benefits sooner than later* -- trivial doesn't matter]
Genuine Options
ARISE IN / DO NOT ARISE IN

according to James
Genuine options NEVER arise in:
-Science [usually not momentous or forced]
-Law [don't make unjustified decisions (bad to make decision when facts not present)]

Genuine options DO arise in:
-Morals
-Personal Relationships [faith in fact can help create fact *think people will be friendly - make friends**think promotion is yours*
-RELIGION

--->so theists are justified in making decision without full evidence (out of passion) -->bc option is Live Forced & Momentous
2 Epistomological Duties

according to James
1) GAIN TRUTH
{hope}
-what atheists & theists are doing

2)AVOID ERROR
{fear}
-what agnostics are doing


(epistomological = study/validity of knowledge)
which of the 4 arguments are said to be the strongest?
FIRST IN BEING

-even an atheist would accept all steps but #10 (that necessarily existing being is god)
-a naturalist would call the necessary thing the matter of the universe instead of god
--->consistent with science--the sum of matter/energy remains the same
WHO?:

thinks no position is any better than the others (atheism theism agnosticism)
JAMES & PASCAL

-but James beleives that it essentially comes down to making a choice from a genuine option
-Pascal essentially beleives that it comes down to making a leap of faith
Cartesian Circle
a circle argument
such as the ontological argument?? (CHECK)

-descartes finds a distinct perfect being within him - proving god's existence - all good god of course guarantees his clear & distinct ideas
difference between positive & negative attributes
positive attributes = those that actually exist
---such as "existence"

negative attributes: the lacking of a positive attribute -- the absence of something
-baldness (absence of hair)
-non-existence (absence of existence)
which argument uses positive/negative attributes to prove god's existence?
the ONTOLOGICAL argument

the concept of god is a perfect being
-perfect beings posses all positive attributes
--existence = positive attribute
---god possesses existence
----god exists
WHO?:

"if god had good reason for all 3 propositions to exist it would work"
HICK
Rational Arguments
knowledge based on reason
religious beleifs can be what kind of rationality
1)non-rational
2)irrational
why is davis flawed when he criticizes the ontological argument?
davis says the perfect being would posses all attributes
-therefore he would possess non-existence
->its NOT PoSSIBLE to possess non-existence
cosmology & science
cosmologists say when big bang occured everything was reduced to single pt called singularity
(no dimensions / no space / no time)
-->meaningless question to ask "prior to the big bang?"


*Davis sucks bc he asks about infinite future... who cares?*
theory of relativity
V = D/T
Hume's criticism of the Teleological argument
-the things being compared are too different from one another
-a good analogy would require our universe being compared to another universe
-this universe could be a "botched effort" from the gods' workshop
intellegent design is bringing back which argument
the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
biggest criticism of the teleological argument?
so much evil in the world
extra possibilities for the existence of evil....
-god lacks power to eliminate evil
-god's goodness is different than ours [might not be opposed to evil]
-evil doesn't exist --> a negative attribute (st augustine)
-evil's an illusion (christian science [this whole words is an ilusion -- testing ground to prove ourselves)
james / pascal
&
agnosticism
James takes agnosticism into account (fear + 2nd epistemological duty)

Pascal doesn't take agnosticism into account (living life no different than atheist -- infinite loss)
WHO?:

the first step is placed on us
JAMES

*like faith in fact creating fact*
Which arguments are
-a priori
-a posteriori
a priori:
ontological (reason alone)

a posteriori:
first in time
first in being
teleological
(based on expericnce
which argument states that past time must be finite because the now wouldn't exist yet if it were infinite
FIRST IN TIME
-COSMOLOGICAL
which arguments are deductive
-ontological
-first in time
-first in being

(if premise is true conclusion must be true)
which argument is inductive
teleological

--->based on analogy
-->men : machines :: god : men

(if premise is true conclusion is likely to be true)
what are the "ACTUAL ENTITIES"
in hick's process theodicy
-those things that exist right now
-finite centers of creative power