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

1/29

Click to flip

29 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

cosmological vs


ontological vs


teleological arguments

cosmological= logical proof from observations of universe




ontological= logical proof from definition of God




teleological= inductive argument effects of God

define greatest conceivable being

GCB= something over which nothing greater can be thought

give a recap of St. Anselm's ontological argument #1

God is defined as the greatest conceivable being; but if God only exists in the mind there could be something greater than God because what exists in reality is greater than what exists in the mind. This is a contradiction so God exists.

give a recap of St. Anselm's ontological argument #2

God is defined as the greatest conceivable being; a necessary being > something contingent, so if God was the latter there could be something greater than him. This is a contradiction so God exists.

which philosophers give an ontological argument?

st. anselm


descartes


platinga

what is Gaunilo's objection to St. Anselm?

the same sort of reasoning would prove that the greatest conceivable island (or burger or greatest conceivable anything) exists which is absurd




=> Anselm replies that his argument only applies to a necessary being

give a recap of Descartes' ontological argument

1. God is perfect


2. existence is a perfection


3. so God exists

what is Gassendi and Kant's objection to Descartes' argument?

existence is NOT a property or perfection


(job qualifications example)

what is Caterus's objection to Descartes' argument?

the argument only shows that existence and perfected are linked together, but not that God exists

give a recap of Platinga's ontological argument

-there is a possible world in which a being with maximal greatness exists


-maximal greatness= maximal excellence in every possible world


-so in this possible world to say that "there is no being with maximal greatness" is impossible or false in every possible world


-but what is impossible in one possible world is impossible in every possible world


-So God exists



define possible world, possible, and impossible, which are concepts Platinga's argument is based on

possible world= a complete way that things


could have been




possible= true in at least one possible world




impossible= false in every possible world

what is the no-maximality objection to Platinga?

1. no-maximality is possible in at least one possible world too


2. if this is true then maximal greatness is impossible (follow the steps of Platinga's argment but replace maximality with no-maximality)


3. So God doesn't exist

give a recap of Paley's design argument

human artifacts come from intelligent design and the universe is like those artifacts but way more complex so the universe probably comes from a vastly powerful and intelligent designer

give a recap of Hume's objections to Paley's design argument (there are 8 objections)

1. the designer could still be finite


2. experience=>knowledge of causality (no experience of what is in ?)


3. why doesn't the designer need an explanation too?


4,5. if we're comparing to human designers, why not a humanlike designer with a physical body? or a team of designers working together?


6. comparison to organism is just as legit but then argument is circular


7. order coming from chance is just as legit (kaleidoscope ex)


8. observations of disorder in the universe undermines the argument

give Paley's response to Hume's objections

1,4. designer is immaterial etc bc nothing can cause itself


2. legit to ask ?s about unique events (e.g. biologists & start of humans)


3. thoughts are logical and ordered intrinsically, unlike material things


5. Occam's razor=> one > many designers


6. comparison to organism doesn't change the regularity in the universe


7. chance is less likely over time (kaleidoscope ex) & chance<=>regularity


8. disorder can just as well be interpreted as order (pain)

explain why darwin's theory of evolution is not relevant to this discussion

darwin's theory presupposes laws of regularity

what philosophical beliefs lead to "death ends all" view?

the mind and everything that makes up our personal characteristics is completely dependent on the body

what philosophical beliefs form the basis of vedantic reincarnation?

atman is the impersonal soul that gets reincarnated according to karma. moksha is when you escape cycle of reincarnation and overcome maya or illusion by "waking up" and realizing you were always one with Brahman which is ultimate reality

what are the 3 rings of the person in the vedantic analysis and their significance?

gross body= physical body which leaves at death




subtle body= nonphysical traits that are reborn thru reincarnation




atman= true self which realizes it is Brahman when moksha occurs and cycle of reincarnation is broken

what are the problems with reincarnation?

1. weak evidence for it


2. how can someone be me + punished for my wrongs when they have none to a few memories of me?


3. karma doesn't explain many things like natural disasters

what are the 4 views on the question of life after death?

1. death ends all


2. reincarnation


3. immortality of soul


4. bodily resurrection

how does aristotle distinguish between sensation, imagination, and intellect

-sensation= direct experience of particular things


-imagination= images of particular things,


concrete and specific,


open to interpretation (e.g. can't tell if image is 1000 or 1001-sided)


can't form images of some things (line= shortest distance btwn 2 points)


-intellect= ideas and concepts,


abstract and general,


not open to interpretation (no confusion over idea of 1000 vs 1001 sides)


can form ideas about anything (e.g. justice)

give a recap of Aristotle's argument for the immateriality of the mind #1

when the form of something comes to exist in something material, it becomes that thing and this is what would happen to the mind if it was material. but since mind=/=>triangle when it thinks about it etc this is absurd and the mind is immaterial.

give a recap of Aristotle's argument for the immateriality of the mind #2

if the mind was material, then thinking would= a material representation, but thoughts are universal while material representations are particular AND thoughts are not open to interpretation the way that material representations are; so thinking can't= a material representation and the intellect is immaterial.

give a recap of Aquinas's argument for the immortality of the soul

death= the form of a living thing separating from matter. when something dies, the form of it goes on as a general pattern. the forms of animals don't survive as particular things since everything they do depends on the body. but the form of being human includes rationality which doesn't depend on the body. since how a thing operates<=>how a thing exists, the particular forms of humans live on.



give a recap of Mackie's argument from evil

God= omniscient,


all-knowing,


all-good


Evil exists




=> these all can't be true so God doesn't exist

give a recap of Rowe's argument from evil

there are some cases of evil which do not lead to a greater good, and God doesn't stop these so God probably doesn't exist.

give a recap to the 5 responses to the arguments from evil

1. we already know God exists


2. he does it for the greater good (free will + certain virtues)


3. evil is a privation or absence of something (God didn't create evil, he just didn't put all the goodness that he could have into it)


4. we're too stupid to understand his reasons (like kids who don't know why they have to eat veggies)


5. impossible to describe God in human terms so we can't even begin to accuse God

Elaborate on the greater good response to the arguments from evil

evil is necessary for the greater good




a. FREE WILL= genuinely good people > programmed good people. free will and evil are a package deal and it is logically impossible to have one w/o the other, so God allows evil.




b. certain virtues require evil (e.g. courage/ compassion/ forgiveness/ growth)