philosophy final

• An argument is valid if it is the case that the truth of the premises
• guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

• An argument is sound if the argument is valid and all the statements,
• including the conclusion are true.

• Is moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and
• theories. The problem with induction is that it makes generalizations about a
• subject. For example the idea that all the ravens are true because up to today
• all the ravens observed are black is in principle wrong.

A system that states that there are no objective truths.

• A theory of knowledge that
• asserts that knowledge comes only of primarily via sensory experience.

• The belief that the world we live in can be understood by the use of
• reason.

Is the idea that only minds and ideas exist.

• A skeptics is one who
• doesn’t think we have or even can have knowledge of a particular sort.

• There exist two distinct substances (i.e. immaterial mind and material
• body)

• Traditional approach to
• explaining mind and behavior by way of concepts such as beliefs thoughts, pain
• etc.

• Type Identity theories hold that at
• least some types of mental states are literally identical with some types of
• brain states.

• Mental States are defined in terms
• of their relations to Sensory input, other mental states, and behavioral
• output.

• There
• are no mental states—there are only brain states.

• are the subjective or qualitative
• properties of experiences. What it feels like, experientially.

Mentalstates have no casual sates, but physical states can cause mental states.

Allfacts are physical facts.

• That feature of some mental states by which they are directed toward objects or
• states of affairs in the world.

• omnipotence, omniscience, Omnibenevolence,
• and omnipresence. Meaning, the Judeo-Christian God is all-powerful, all
• knowing, all loving, and ever-present.

• A priori is a type of knowledge that is
• derived without experience or observation. They are true regardless of
• experiment or observation. For example: 2 + 2 = 4. A posteriori is a type of
• knowledge, which is derived through experience or observation.

• that do not require an explanation. a brute fact is one whose truth does
• not depend on some more fundamental fact or facts.

• "other
• things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex
• one." It tries to explain the reasons why sometimes the increase in
• population is not necessary.

1) Anselm: 1 Suppose god existed only in the understanding.


2. It could have existed in reality as well.


3. If it existed in reality it would have been greater.

• 4. Therefore, a
• GCB could have been greater.

5. 4 is absurd

• 6. Therefore, a
• GCB exists not only in the --------------------understanding,
• but in reality as well.

• 2) Guanil0’s Objection: If the argument succeds,
• then we can prove the existence of things, which we know, don’t exist (e.g. the
• perfect island)

• 3) Kant: Existence is not a property. Existence is a
• precondition for having
• properties. Kant says that premise 3 is false . Existence is about
• correspondence between an idea and the world.

• 4) GCG & possibility: In order for the
• GCB to be possible i.e. for 2 to be true, one must show that there is a limit
• to how great a being can be.

1. Everything has a cause

2. Nothing can cause itself.

3. Causal chains cannot go back infinitely into the past.

4. There must be a first cause.

• Problem: it is a basic
• presupposition that we all make. Nature is not bound to satisfy our
• presuppositions.

1. Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

2. Every being is either dependent or self existent.

3. Not every being can be dependent

4. There exists a self existent being

There must be an explanation for the existence of every being and every fact.

A being which is explained by something other than itself.

• 1) Why cant there be an infinite chain of dependent
• beings…-violates the PSR.

2) Why believe PSR is true?

• 3) Either is true that everything has a cause or it isn’t. Then God has a cause. Then why not
• allow that the universe is doesn’t require a cause.

A: it is institutively true.

Problem:it is not unanimous

B: It isa basic presupposition that we all make.

Problem:Nature is not bound to satisfy our presuppositions.

Inferring that 2 objects are similar insome respect on the basis of the fact that they are similar in other respects.

Complex Order Adaptation of means to ends… It has a purpuse and it is well suited for accomplishing that purpose.

1) The argument rests on a weak analogy.

• The greater the dissimilarity
• between the objects in question, the weaker the analogy.

• 2) We can observe the creation of watches
• though we cannot observe the creation of the universe.

• 3) Evolution provides an alternative
• explanation for the complex order of the universe.

• The argument seems to imply that God was
• also created by intelligent design.

• 1) There are several basic physical
• constants that had to be just as they are in order for life to be possible.

• 2) The possibility of all of these constants
• being just as they are is incredibly low.

3) Therefore it requires an explanation.

4) God made it so is a good explanation.

• 5) In fact, God made it so it is the best
• explanation we have.

• 6) Therefore, we have good reason to believe
• in the existence of God.

1) other possible kinds of life.

2) Why not think That god is also fine tuned

• 3) Every possible combination of values for
• the constants is equally impossible, so why does “our’ way require an
• explanation?

• 4) Multiverse hypothesis: Points out the
• existence of many distinct universes each with its own physical constants. They
• would produce the unlikehood of our universe tuning out as id did.

Chance

• Results of operations of nature…. ie Tornadoes,
• hurricanes, earthquakes,

Rape, murder, torture, and all that stuff.