Introduction To Philosophy

Front 1

Epistemology

Back 1

Study of a set of philosophical ideas (knowledge, belief, doubt, faith, uncertainty, etc.,)

Front 2

Meaning Question: what is knowledge?

Back 2

Justified true belief (classic view)
ex. I know obama is president. I believe he is president. before you know something it must be justified. so in this case, follow election

Front 3

Truth Question: Is there any knowledge?

Back 3

Religious dogmatists: yes
Religious sceptics: no

Front 4

Logical connections question: Is faith a form of knowledge?

Back 4

yes: Religious dogmatist- you can know God exists w/certainty/high probability
Anti religious dogmatists-God does not exist
no: Religious fideist-I can’t know God exists, but I can live as if I know He does.
Religious skeptic (agnostic)- I choose to live as if I know God did not exist

Front 5

Forms of knowledge: Primary sources

Back 5

1. Experience (sense exp)
2. Reason
3. Intuition- sudden insight where you recognize something true ex. Laughing at a joke

Front 6

Forms of knowledge: Secondary sources

Back 6

4. Authority/testimony-were told. Most of what we know is here
5. Revelation-Special revelation; knowledge from God

Front 7

What is fatalism?

Back 7

Philosophical claim that the future is already determined.
-remember this is not a claim that we know everything but it's metaphysics (reality)

Front 8

Counterfeit fatalism

Back 8

idle ‘lazy’ argument = if something is fated to happen to you, it will happen no matter what you do, doesn’t matter what you do (might as well be lazy)
-how could you use this counterfeit fatalism?
If I’m fated to fail, I’ll fail no matter what, no point in studying
*doesn't matter what you do, never matters

Front 9

The problem with Counterfeit fatalism or maybe just fatalism..

Back 9

1. Encourages irresponsible life
2. Logically incoherent because it makes impossible things possible
Ex. Kendra is not a mom. It’s fated that in 2041 she’s a grandma. False
Fatalism makes her being a grandma possible without her being a mom.

Front 10

local fatalism

Back 10

acknowledgment that a certain outcome is unavoidable
Ex. Organic chemistry exam you never studied for-15 mins before-you really have no choice, you can’t pass exam.

Front 11

Real fatalism

Back 11

What you do does make a difference; is fated to make a difference

Front 12

Why believe fatalism?

Back 12

o Appeal of logic-law of the excluded middle, all propositions are either true or false, already true or already false; guarantees that a proposition will be true or false
o Appeal to God- because God knows everything, God knows what will happen in the future; therefore the future is already set

Front 13

Logical question: is freewill necessary for moral responsibility?

Back 13

Classic answer- yes, it provides a foundation for moral responsibility.

Front 14

Why should we care?

Back 14

Freewill is connected to other things: praise, blame, punishment, reward.
we need freewill to do these things.

Front 15

Determinism

Back 15

the philosophical claim that for everything that happens there are conditions in which given those conditions they have to happen.

Front 16

Hard determinism (not an option for Christians)

Back 16

Determinism is true
No freewill
No Moral responsibility

Front 17

Soft Determinism

Back 17

D can be true; doesn’t matter
Yes Fw
Yes MR

Front 18

Indeterminism

Back 18

D is not true
Yes Fw
Yes Mr

Front 19

What is freewill? Rational fw

Back 19

There is a personal connection between me and my choice. I have personal reason to make the choice that I make.
??Dct Fw incomp fw
Liberatarianfw
Compatibilist fw
Sdfw

Front 20

What is freewill? nonrational fw

Back 20

You don't need any reason to make a choice.
Epircirean FW (peicurus, 300 BC)
‘swerve’-atoms move uncausesd-atomism
The swerve is the basis for moral responsibility
*given the person’s character and circumstances at time T, the person is causily determ. To choose between options a,b,…(the range). Which of these options the person chooses is not causily determ. by the person’s character and circumstances?

Front 21

Compatabilist

Back 21

Who and what you are determines the choices that you make. Free will is the outflow of who you are. Anything that would be better than anything else is the choice that you would make.

Front 22

Libertarian

Back 22

in order for it to be freewill there has to be a range in which you choose from.
ex. Ex. Comp- 1 hr in dorm-talk on phone or study for test? You character chooses
Liber- same as above but you’re not determined by your character & circumstances

Front 23

Example of Bob: compatabilist and libertarian perspectives:

Back 23

Comp-that was a free choice but this one he chose means that most to him
Liber-it this was a free choice, there had to be a range. He could have chosen the other ones within the range.

Front 24

Prayer in freewill

Back 24

Prayer requests that involve the future free choices of other people.
Ex. Praying that someone would get a job.
1 john 5:14-15- according to God’s revealed will, b/c if it was a secret will of God, how would you know?

Front 25

example of mary and martha: how compt. interpret this

Back 25

How the compatabilist and libertarian interpret this:
Compt. Fw= God guarantees this result if you prayed in faith.
Mary and Martha forgive eachother
Objection- God is like a puppeteer controlling Mary an dMartha

Front 26

example of mary and martha: how lib. interpret this

Back 26

Libertarian fw= unless God takes away their free will, God has to leave open possibilities, so God works in hearts to assist them in making choices.
Objection: leaves out confidence, leaves us in a weak position

Front 27

lesson from freewill lecture

Back 27

*as a fact of our lives, we’re going to have some ?s about our worldview that we haven’t answered/we may never answer. Even so we need to continue to live our lives and not wait to understand ?s.
We have to be practical. People are in serious trouble when their worldview is shattered.

Front 28

Arguing that God exists

Back 28

As Christians we have no obligation to argue for God's existence.

Front 29

Value in arguing for God's existence

Back 29

1. Helps in evangelism-gets people thinking
2. Helps Christians whose faith has become weak

Front 30

Arguing for proving: good proof

Back 30

a) Objective-valid deductive argument with true premises (guarantee its conclusions)
b) Subjective-any argument that convinces someone
Proofs for God’s existence tend to be person relative-one argument might help one person and not another

Front 31

Nondeductive arguments

Back 31

this we use for God.
show conclusion to be probably (99%) true
Cumulative case for God’s existence-arguments taken together that are more powerful
Facts-use things everyone believes and say wouldn’t fact #1 make sense if God exists?
Inference tot eht best explanation-God being the best explanation
1. Ex. Fact=existence of the universe (cosmological argument) the best expl for existence is god
2. Ex. Fact=order & structure of universe (teleological) best explanation: a divine mind
3. Ex. Logic/math work. Best expl-God, divine mind
4. Ex. Moral experience best expl-creator who gives right and wrong
*Take these and argue a highly probable and rational case for God’s existence

Front 32

Ontological argument

Back 32

St. Anselm, “ the ontological argument” it argues from the existence of the idea of God, the actual existence of God.
If the idea of God exists, then God must exist.

Front 33

Ontological argument: statment 1

Back 33

1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived (TWNGCBC)

Front 34

Ontological argument: statement 2-
God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived (TWNGCBC)

Back 34

2. Everyone understands these words: a being (TWNGCBC)

Front 35

Ontological argument: statement 3-
Everyone understands these words: a being (TWNGCBC)

Back 35

3. Whatever is understood exists in the understanding

Front 36

Ontological argument: statement 4-
Whatever is understood exists in the understanding

Back 36

4. Therefore, a being (TWNGTCBC) ie. God, exists in the understanding

Front 37

Ontological argument: statment 5-
Therefore, a being (TWNGTCBC) ie. God, exists in the understanding

Back 37

5. It is greater to exist in reality than not to exist (or it is greater to exist both in the understanding and in reality)

Front 38

Ontological argument: statement 6-
It is greater to exist in reality than not to exist (or it is greater to exist both in the understanding and in reality)

Back 38

6. Therfore if God exists only in the understanding, He would not be as great as He could be (ie, He would not be a being [TWNGCBC])

Front 39

Ontological argument: statement 7-
Therfore if God exists only in the understanding, He would not be as great as He could be (ie, He would not be a being [TWNGCBC])

Back 39

7. But God is a being (TWNGCBC)

Front 40

Ontological argument: statement 8-
But God is a being (TWNGCBC)

Back 40

8. Therefore, God does not exist only in the understanding.

Front 41

Ontological argument: statement 9-
Therefore, God does not exist only in the understanding.

Back 41

9. Therefore, God exists in reality

Front 42

Traditional objection to the ontological argument

Back 42

The traditional objection to St. Anselm’s argument of existence is not a predicate
Distinguish between…
Existential statements Subject/predicate statemtns
An idea of X, X exists X is Y
Ex. The table is brown


Anselm treated existence as though the table was brown. If existence is not a predicate, the argument fails. (This is an objection)