Philosophy Exam 1 (Set 2).

Front 1

Thomas Aquinas

Back 1

Theologian (1225-1274). Writes after Anselm. Holds an important place in Catholic theology. Dominican monk. His five ways are to prove the exisstence of God.

Front 2

What argument does St. Thomas make?

Back 2

St. Thomas makes the cosmelogical argument.

Front 3

What type of premises does St. Thomas use in the cosmelogical argument?

Back 3

He uses some a possteriori premises. That is premises which you have to prove by going out into the world.

Front 4

What does anselm's argument suggest about existence?

Back 4

Anselm suggests that existence is in degrees. It's greater to exist in reality then it is in the mind.

Front 5

What does the cosmological argument think about?

Back 5

The cosmological argument thinks about causality and cosmology has to do with causality.

Front 6

What type of argument is Thomas's Cosmological argument? What type of argument does it use?

Back 6

Deductive: reductio ad absurdum

Front 7

What is the difference between Thomas and Anselm's arguments from a technical standpoint?

Back 7

Anselm uses a priori premises
Thomas Aquinas uses some a posteriori premises.

Front 8

Cosmological argument P1.

Back 8

Some things in this world are in motion. (A posteriori premise. He doesn't think that this claim is controversial. Motion refers to causal change; if we think of ourselves our cells are always moving.)

Front 9

Cosmological argument P2

Back 9

ANything moved is being caused to move by something else (not controversial) (Aristotle's thought the table will sit there until I come to move it. The idea is things don't just spontaneously move rather something moves it for a purpose)

Front 10

Cosmological argument P3

Back 10

There cannot be an infinite chain of causes of motion (controversial)
a. Assumption: there can be an infinite chain of causes of motion.
(Not only must there be something that starts it off there has to be a traceable thing which started it off.)
b) If a chain of causes of motion is infinite, then there is no first cause of motion.
c) If there is no first cause of motion, then there are no subsequent causes of motion.
d) If there are no subsequent causes of motion, then there would be no observable motion.
e) But, there is observable motion.

Front 11

How does Aquinas prove P3, There cannot be an infinite chain of causes of motion?

Back 11

a. Assumption: there can be an infinite chain of causes of motion.
(Not only must there be something that starts it off there has to be a traceable thing which started it off.)
b) If a chain of causes of motion is infinite, then there is no first cause of motion.
c) If there is no first cause of motion, then there are no subsequent causes of motion.
d) If there are no subsequent causes of motion, then there would be no observable motion.
e) But, there is observable motion.

Front 12

Aquinas conclusion

Back 12

C1. Therefore, there is a first cause of motion that itself is not moved by anything.
C2. That first cause is God.

Front 13

What is the idea St. Thomas has about using the universe in support of his proof?

Back 13

He says if we look at the universe it's in motion. The chin cannot be infinite, we need something that kicks it off that itself has never been moved. Given that we're looking at teh perfect being it would have go be God.

Front 14

What are the 2 objections to St. Thomas's Cosmological argument

Back 14

1. The argument commits the fallacy of composition.
2. Aquinas needs an argument to prove that God is the first cause.

Front 15

Does causality have to work that way?

Back 15

If it's the cause of all the parts of the universe are in motion even if he can assert that hte parts of the universe cannot move itself can the universe as a whole act on its own? Aquinas says the whole universe had to have ahd a mover. Is that really the case?

Front 16

Objection 1 to Cosmological argument

Back 16

The argument commits the fallacy of composition. Those under this position say Aquinas said what's true of the partys of the universe is true of the whole of the universe, Even if we say things need causes then it's true of the whole. Basically what they say is if we had a situation such as:
P1. Each one of the tracks on this CD is less than 5 minutes long.
C. Thus, the CD is less than five minutes long.
To make this statement you would be in error. b/c what's true of the parts is not true of the whole CD.

Front 17

Objection 2 to Cosmological argument

Back 17

Aquinas needs an argument to prove that the first cause is God. This objection focuses on his conclusion. It's not clear that God is the only candidate that could have causeed this, scientitsts today say well even if I gave him conclusion 1 I could disagree and say no to conclusion 2. The first cause is the big bang. The argument doesn't show that it has to be God.

Front 18

What differences are there between Anselm's argument and Aquinas's argument?

Back 18

Anselm writes to someone who doesn't believe in God and really tries to sell it to those people by using all conceptual truths. He says just think about it. all premises are true by definition. He plays on your mental faculties. He doesn't even argue for his premises because he doesn't believe they need explanation.
Aquinas-It seems like you'd have to believe in God already to agree with the conclusion he reaches in his argument because he makes such a big leap of faith. Aquinas uses natural philosophy. He argues by using reality as a guide for his argument. You get a nice blending of science and religion.

Front 19

What questions does Aquinas's raise about God

Back 19

Well if everythign has to have a cause, isn't the unmoved mover required to have a cause as well? Either he can cause somehing to move and cannot move himself or is it that he caused himself to move and he himself is motion? Seems to be a big leap of faith between this and the unmoved mover. You'd have to have a spontaneous mover.

Front 20

What is God's role in the causal chain?

Back 20

What cuased God? This worry is that Aquinas says something that ismoving must be moved by something else. So is God in the causal chain? Because if he s then he has to be set into motion. If this is the case then God is not the unmoved mover.
Otherwise God's NOT part of the causal chain but that seems to be a contradiction because he has to be the unmoved mover. If God is moving why don't we need God to have a mover but this seems to contradict the notion of his causal chain unless there's an infinite causal Chain. Seemingly Aquinas wants him to be a part of the chain and say that God put the whole thing into motion. But if he's part of the chain he must be moved.

Front 21

If God can change himself what does that mean for his causal chain system

Back 21

God's in the causal chain everything else in the causal chain has to have something that moves itWouldn't God have to have something move him?

Front 22

Paley what argument does he present

Back 22

teleological argument. Argument from design

Front 23

Paley

Back 23

1743-1805 Theologian Paley takes greek argument

Front 24

Teleological argument

Back 24

Delivered by Paley. Inductive uses probabalistic reasoning.

Front 25

Infrence to the best explanation

Back 25

We use these all the time. If you come home and see the glass of the back door broken and the glass inside it appears like something shattered it from the outside. Or if gingerbread cookies are on the floor and the bag is shredded and the dog looks guilty we assume he was the culprit although he's not necessarily the culprit.

Front 26

Teleological argument what type of premises

Back 26

A posteriori premises

Front 27

What is the general scheme in Paley's teeological argument?

Back 27

The general scheme is that he wants to move from things in our world we know we have a designer. So since we have things that are made, we must have a maker for natural things as well.

Front 28

Teleological argument P1

Back 28

Human artifacts (anything constructed by humans) exhibit complexity and purpose-that is they exhibit functional order as a result of having been designed by an intelligent designer.
(Cannot for example, say Flynn go make me a florescent light bulb. Rather, it takes engineers. Something intelligent designed it. To be sure we may have accidentally discovered somethings but we tweak them and that's design.

Front 29

Teleological argument P2

Back 29

Many natural objects are very complex and appear to serve various purposes. For instance, the human eye, animal instincts, bee colonies.
(Human eye is terribly complex. Human instinct we don't have to think about and remember to breathe._

Front 30

Teleological argument P3.

Back 30

By analogy we should accept that the best explanation for the complexity and apparent purpose that we find in nature is that these objects were designed by an intelligent designer.

Front 31

Teleological argument P4

Back 31

Since the natural world is incomprehensibly more complex than any and all human artifacts, its designer likely would have to have been powerful enough to have created it.
(That entity can't be us because the world is so compex it can't be us.)

Front 32

Teleological Conclusion

Back 32

God is the best explanation for the functional order that is exhibited in the natural world.
9SAys the best explanation seems to be God because he's all knowing, all powerful, ect.)

Front 33

Argument from analogy

Back 33

P1. Entity one has properties a, b, c, z.
P2. Entity 2 has properties a, b, c,.
C. Entity 2 is likely to have property z as well.

Given that we have a,b, and c and entity 1 also has other property. All Paley is doing is using the watch and the human eye saying if it's true of thing 1, the watch, it must be true of thing 2, the human eye. They are similar in exhibiting functional similarities to the argument he wants to make this conclusion.

Front 34

The watchmaker argument what type of logic does it use and what type of premises

Back 34

Inductive argument with a posteriori premises

Front 35

The watchmaker argument P1.

Back 35

Watches have complex inner workings.

Front 36

The watchmaker argument P2.

Back 36

The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate or require an intelligent designer.

Front 37

The watchmaker argument P3.

Back 37

The natural world (a particular organism a particular organ the structure of the universe ect.) is even more complex then a watch.

Front 38

The watchmaker conclusion

Back 38

So there must be an intelligent designer of the natural world on that is all powerful.

Front 39

The watchmaker argument is presented by

Back 39

Paley

Front 40

The watchmaker P2

Back 40

The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate or require an intelligent designer.
(If there weren't an intelligent designer who had a deliberate plan, we would not have watches. Metal sitting around wouldn't spontaneously generate a watch. It wouldn't appear in nature. These things are a result of human thought.

Front 41

Relative things

Back 41

Max bought a new car, beige interior, leather seats, 4 doors, great gas mileage.
Sam bought a new car, beige interior, leather seats, 4 doors.
Can we also say Sam's car gets great gas mileage?
The Max/Sam argument-disagree because it's not relative.Relative things would be make model engine size ect. If one's a truck and one's a car they get way different gas mileage. Since the 2 cars are so similar we will conclude that Sam's new car has great gas mileage.

Front 42

Hume

Back 42

Scotish philosopher. 1711-1776 With Hume he is a thinker in the enlightenment. He thinks about how things work in the world. He says a) can't find a priori truths so deductive arguments never work/ He's thinking about what we know. HE says there's nothing we can know with certainty. HE says to know anything about anything we have to know it by experience.

Front 43

In Hume's piece what position does Cleanthes take?

Back 43

Cleanthes argues for design.

Front 44

In Hume's piece, what does Dema say

Back 44

Dema uses a priori deductive argument to contend that God's existence is best established like Anselm did. That is a priori proof proof. If you don't put this only by experience then you leave the door open for all the atheists.

Front 45

In Hume's piece what position does Philo take?

Back 45

Philo is skeptical of the world. HE offers Hume's view. The problem is that any argument you could offer will be failing.

Front 46

In Hume's piece what question is at the forefront?

Back 46

Knowledge is the question at the forefront.

Front 47

Hume says we can know things in 2 ways:

Back 47

1. Some of our knowledge will be knowledge of the relations of ideas. Certain things we know, we know by the existence of other things. Bachelors are men. 1+1=2. They don't tell me anything important about the world. It doesn't tell me that there are or aren't bachelors. This kind of knowledge is uninformative. We cannot sensibly dispute things. A priori definitions are matter of fact things.
2. Knowledge of matters of fact: a posteriori. This knowledge is informative. We can go out and experience the fact that grass is green. We're only going to use experienc. He says you can't prove the existence of something without experiencing it for yourself.

Front 48

Hume believes we can know things in 2 ways 1: Some knowledge is knowlede of the relation of ideas

Back 48

1. Some of our knowledge will be knowledge of the relations of ideas. Certain things we know, we know by the existence of other things. Bachelors are men. 1+1=2. They don't tell me anything important about the world. It doesn't tell me that there are or aren't bachelors. This kind of knowledge is uninformative. We cannot sensibly dispute things. A priori definitions are matter of fact things.

Front 49

Hume believes we can know things in 2 ways: way 2. Knowledge of matters of fact

Back 49

2. Knowledge of matters of fact: a posteriori. This knowledge is informative. We can go out and experience the fact that grass is green. We're only going to use experienc. He says you can't prove the existence of something without experiencing it for yourself.

Front 50

Teliological argument/Argument by design by Hume: P1.

Back 50

Entity e within nature is LIKE human artifact A. (For instance a machine) in relevant respects R (R could be complexity, design ect._

Front 51

Teliological argument/argument by design Hume P2.

Back 51

Human artifact A HAS R precisely b/c it is a product of deliberate design by human intelligent agency.

Front 52

Teliological argument/argument by design Hume P3.

Back 52

LIke effects typically have like causes (or like explanations, like requirements).

Front 53

Teliological argument/argument by design Hume conclusion.

Back 53

It is highly probable that E has R because it too is a product of deliberate design by intelligent, relatively human like agency.

Front 54

What does Philo say

Back 54

Philo says if experience is our only source we have to be clear that our experience with human artifacts tells us these things. Then can we really apply this to things that are alive and compare them to things like tables, chairs, and computers? Can you compare a watch with a dog who has instincts and can be self sustaining? Watches don't have these capabilities What does the argument get us? An argument that relrates to human designers.

Front 55

Philo says the argument is weak because:

Back 55

1. Persons aren't like watches.
2. We don't know what we'd like to know. We know much less then we'd like to know.
3. We are finite beings. Finite beings create finite things. Using this argument yo describe a finite being.
4. Human beings even designers make mistakes. We get a God who is not perfect. By analogy it seems like if we are fallible God would have to be fallible. That's not the God we're trying to prove.
5. Human designers work together to design things. IF we want to extend the analogy wouldn't that suggest multiple gods? YEs, but that's not the conclusion we are trying to reach.

Front 56

What are Hume's 2 objections to the teleological argument?

Back 56

Weak analogy
Proving the wrong God.

Front 57

In Hume's argument what individuals participate in the discussion and what is their conclusion?

Back 57

Philo gives objections, Cleanthes gives argument for design, and Dema says we have to have a proof like Anselm.

Front 58

Hume's objection to teliological argument 1.

Back 58

Weak analogy. Human artifacts draw an analogy between human artifacts with human designer and using it to say natural objects/entities with God. (Nature's designer). He says natural objects have life to them. They are living. Human artifacts aren't self sustaining. They don't have many similarities so he doesn't think we can make any type of generalizations about them. He worries about going on in premises.

Front 59

Hume's 2nd objection to the teleological argument

Back 59

Proving the wrong God. If you look at what you're doing and look at human made objects and say they're natural objects they say we look at atributes of human designers. but if we do that we reduce God to having human like qualities. All the things around us are finite so how can we use this as proof for an infinite being? How can you ascribe perfection? The human artifacts are imperfect and human designers are imprefect, so to make this claim about God seems contradictory. We have to take medication and get sore muscles as natural objects. This would seem that we are not perfect. If we are, that means our designer, God, could also be imperfect. For all we know that shows there's imperfect design in the world. All experience gets us is imperfect things.

Front 60

What does Hume say experience can get us?

Back 60

Hume says all experience can get us is imperfect things.

Front 61

According to Hume what does he think that the most that we can do is?

Back 61

Hume says the best analogycan do is prove a human-like God. This isn't the God they want to prove. They don't want to prove that God can make mistakes. It's supposed to be an all powerful God who is all good. So why would he many us have asthma or let children starve. Because of these things it seems like God made a mistake.

Front 62

What things does Hume suggest as evidence that God could be imperfect?

Back 62

It's supposed to be an all powerful God who is all good. So why would he many us have asthma or let children starve. Because of these things it seems like God made a mistake.

Front 63

What does hume say about objects being finite and the nature of God?

Back 63

Hume says how can you just look at human designers and nautre's designer? Hume says you can't because we know we are fallible and the God we're trying to prove is infallible. We don't see God like we see ourselves. We see ourselves as working with trial and error. If we are drawing this conclusion about human designers why isn't it included in our conclusion of God as designer?