Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
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 |