Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
51 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
ANSLEM
what type of argument is the ontological argument |
apriori
it is the only argument for God that is purely apriori |
|
|
|
ANSLEM
a necessary possible thing ... |
exists in both understanding and reality
|
|
|
|
ANSLEM
possible things can be either.. |
contingent or necessary
|
|
|
|
ANSLEM
a contingent possible thing... |
exists in understanding and could exist in reality
or exists in reality but not in other worlds exists in either side but could be conceived in the other |
|
|
|
ANSLEM
examples of possible things understanding v reality(side 3) |
exists in understanding
leprachauns centaurs God pinnochio |
exists in reality
empire state building barry university tables in a room |
|
|
ANSLEM
examples of impossible things |
round square
married bachelor triangle whose interior angles not equal to 180 |
|
|
|
ANSLEM
is God an impossible thing according to anslem |
God is not an impossible thing because the concept of God is conceivable and not contradictory
|
|
|
|
ANSLEM
basis of anslems argument side 3 |
God must exist, simply given the nature of the concept of God
|
if God exists in understanding then he must exist in reality because of the definition of God
|
|
|
ANSLEM
why is it safe to assume God exists in understanding |
Even an atheist, who denies the existence of God in reality is acknowledging that there is a concept of God, therefore there is a possibility that God exists
|
|
|
|
ANSLEM
Existence is a ____ |
great making quality
it makes something greater than it is if it doesn't exist |
|
|
|
ANSLEM
God by definition.... |
perfect being, which none greater can be conceived
|
|
|
|
ANSLEM
side 3 according to anslem God cannot merely exist in understanding because |
existence is a great making quality
if a being in which none greater can be conceived only exists in understanding then a greater being can be conceived that exists in reality. thus making this being greater than God but nothing is greater than God |
if god only exists in understanding, it implies that there is some being that exists in reality that is greater than God but nothing can be greater than God.
OR existing in understanding is less perfect than existing in both. God by definition is a perfect being |
|
|
ANSLEM
anslem believes that God is a ____ being because____ SIDE 3 objection |
anslem believe that god is a POSSIBLE being because THE CONCEPT OF GOD ESTABLISHES THAT GOD HAS TO EXIST
|
just because the concept means there has to be a God, doesn't mean there is an actual being (God) that lives up to it ..... doesn't mean its real
|
|
|
ANSLEM
what is GAUNILO's criticism side 3: anslems reply |
anslems line of reasoning can be used to establish that things exist in reality that we know does not exist in reality.
ex) perfect island therefore anslems reasoning must be deficient |
line of reasoning is unique and can only be used to establish the existence of God
|
|
|
ANSLEM
a better reply to gaunilo's criticism side 3: rebuttal |
line of thought only applies to possible things
perfect island is impossible thing |
god is an impossible thing
anslem is begging the question |
|
|
ANSLEM
another possible objection |
anslem doesnt prove God exists
if God has all those attributes, he must exist |
|
|
|
PALEY
what type of argument is the teleological argument (2 things) |
inductive
a posteriori |
|
|
|
PALEY - teleological
what analogy is being used |
man made artifacts and natural artifacts are both complex.
since one was designed the other must've been designed as well. |
|
|
|
PALEY - teleological
which is more complex nature / man made things |
complexities of things in nature are far more complex than man made things
|
|
|
|
PALEY - teleological
old design v new design focus of each argument |
old
explanation for the existence of living things new why is this universe suitable for life |
|
|
|
PALEY - teleological
word teleological derived from |
telo - greek - meaning purpose
|
|
|
|
PALEY - teleological
naturalism v theism 3 things side 3: naturalistic / theistic |
if God used evolution it would exhibit skill
evolution seemingly exhibits non skill because it consists of indirect connections and mistakes evolution doesn't necessarily point to God nor does it exhibit design |
naturalistic: darwin theory, natural selection
theism: God created theism was more plausible in the 18century |
|
|
PALEY - teleological
the uniqueness of our universe points to _____ but it is unknown whether_____ or _____ because _____ |
creation/design
but it is unknown whether this planet is one of many earlier versions that we are unaware of OR whether this is the first and only one BECAUSE experience doesn't indicate that either is true |
|
|
|
PALEY - teleological
Design arguments are inductive because side 3 |
they're not deductive proofs for God
they're just analogies |
doesn't establish that an all knowing all perfect God created it just a superior being
|
|
|
PALEY - teleological
if the teleological argument is true is doesnt mean that .... |
earth was designed for us
|
|
|
|
Morality
|
is the idea of punishment
blame and praise wouldn't make sense w/out free will can't make sense of morality w/out presupposing there is a such thing as free will |
|
|
|
blame and praise hold value because..
|
of free will
the person could have chosen to do something else |
|
|
|
free will
|
the idea that people have choices
holds people accountable for their actions |
|
|
|
similarities between determinism and compatibilism
|
both believe everything we do is caused
|
|
|
|
hard determinism:
|
everything we do is caused
no free will if determinism is true indeterminism cannot be true |
|
|
|
indeterminism (free will- pure sense)
|
everything is not caused
you have free will if indeterminism is true then determinism is not |
|
|
|
compatiblism aka
side 3: examples of internal / external causes |
soft determinism
everything is caused but even if your actions are caused you can still act freely given that your actions were not externally caused |
examples
|
|
|
fatalism v determinism
|
fatalism is NOT determinism
fatalism- change past, same outcome event is going to happen no matter what, regardless of past determinism- change the past you can change the outcome |
|
|
|
determinism
2things (choices) |
given the past, there is only one unique possible outcome although there may appear to be two
choice is an illusion, there is no choice everything is caused |
|
|
|
indeterminism ( free will)
3 things (choices) |
no routine / habituation
no predictions there is a 50/50 chance that you will chose either option given the past, there are two possible outcomes that are equally realizable and can be actualized. |
|
|
|
problem with determinism
|
even though a lot of things are caused doesn't mean everything has a cause
|
|
|
|
why people believe in determinism
|
people believe in casual relations much like science (we trust science because it worked in the past)
|
|
|
|
1st conception of free will
side 3: desire examples |
rational constraint / planning
predicts possible outcomes and try to prevent a certain outcome |
first order desire
desire 1: i want drugs 2nd order desire: desire 2: i want not to want drugs (free will is stronger) |
|
|
the act of rational constraint is deterministic because
|
believing A will cause B
ex) going to college >>> better, well paying job |
|
|
|
2nd concept of free will
|
pure sense
you can't say in advance what a person is going to do |
|
|
|
STACE
problem of free will is ______ 3sides |
semantic
wrong definition |
freedom doesn't mean uncaused
freedom in common usage is not being constrained, not being coerced, absence of coercion |
|
|
STACE
problem with stace agrument |
borderline cases in which it is hard to tell if caused/compelled by an external force or not
|
|
|
|
STACE
is determinism inconsistent with free will |
its only inconsistent with free will in a certain sense (coercion)
|
|
|
|
predictions, casual behaviors point to...
|
determinism
|
|
|
|
mysterious aspect of compatibilism
|
how can you have a choice about something you have no choice about...
even if your actions were determined you are still held accountable for your actions |
|
|
|
STACE
argument |
an action may be free even though it could have been predicted beforehand with certainty
if i am externally constrained then i do not act feely |
|
|
|
examples of internal constraint
|
psychology, environment, neurology
|
|
|
|
free acts are caused by
|
desires, motives, or by some psychological agent
|
|
|
|
unfree acts caused by
|
physical forces or physical conditions
|
|
|
|
the punishment of a man is justified
|
either on the ground that it will correct his own character or that it will deter other people from doing similar acts
|
|
|
|
version of
the ontological argument 6things |
(1)God by definition is a perfect being
(2)A being that exists only in the understanding is not a perfect being (3)Thus, no being that exists only in the understanding is God [ 1, 2] (4)God is a possible being (5)Possible beings exist either in reality or exist in understanding (6)Therefore, God exists in reality[3 4 5] |
|
