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

1/7

Click to flip

7 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
auxiliary assumptions
hypothesis rarely deductively imply predictions all by themselves; must conjoin auxiliary assumptions A to a hypothesis H to get H to deductively imply an observational prediction O
--auxiliary assumptions must be checkable independent of the hypothesis under test (must be able to prove assumptions without knowing if O is already true)
Examples of auxiliary assumptions
A1: If there is a God, there will be living things in the world and they will be perfectly adapted to their environments
A2: If there is a God, there will be no living things
A3: If there is a God, there will be no living things in the world, but they will not be perfectly adapted to their environments
--The hypothesis that there is a God predicts something we can check by making observations
diagram of direct testability
a.)If H, then O
b.)O
Therefore, H
e.g. a.)If the burner is hot, my hand feels pain
b.) my hand feels pain
Therefore, the burner is hot
-abductive argument
a.) If H, then O
b.) Not O
Therefore, not H = deductive argument
diagram of indirect testability
a.) If [H is true, and A1, A2, A3...] then O
b.) O
Therefore, then H and A1, A2...
a.)If [H and A1, A2...], then O
b.) Not O
Therefore, not the case that [H and A1, A2...]
expected utility
Pascal's Wager:
the expected utility of an action is the average payoff you would recieve, if you performed the action again and again; relates to desicion theory of trying to maximize expected utility through your actions
e.g. E.U of buying lottery ticket
-($1)(51/52)+($999999)(1/52)
= $19230
Wager Argument
People should believe in God because of prudential reasoning (it's to the person's benefit to believe)
1.)Believe that God exists and God exists = GREAT
2.)Believe that God exists and God doesn't = Slightly meh
3.)Don't believe and he doesn't = Just fine
4.) Don't believe and he does exist = INFINETLY BAD
*The final outcome of believing is better than the outcome of not believing
Problem of Evil
What is the definition of evil?
What is too much evil? (the right amount?)
-responses: free will (which God doesn't meddle w/free will