CT Exam 3

• P1. The universe exists.
• Self-evident
•  P2. Either it has a beginning or it does not have a beginning.
•  Follows from logic alone
• P3. It is not possible that the universe is eternal (i.e., have no beginning).
•  Supported by argument against the possibility of actual infinities
• C1. Therefore, the universe has a beginning.
•  Follows from P1, P2, 
• P4. If the universe has a beginning, the existence of the universe has a cause.
• “Ex nihilo nihil fit.” Apparently plausible claim about causation
•  P5. If the existence of the universe has a cause, the cause of the universe is immaterial, timeless, and changeless.
• Follows from the cause preceding spatiotemporal reality
• C2. Therefore, the cause of the universe is immaterial,timeless, andchangeless.
•  Follows from C1, P4, P5 (Modus Ponens)
• P6. If something that created the universe is immaterial, timeless, and changeless, then that thing is God.
•  (This was the conclusion of the sub-argument considered earlier.)
• C3. Therefore, God exists.

• Suppose God exists. If God exists, God either has a cause or
• exists uncaused. If it is not possible that something exists uncaused, then God also has cause. Call this God-2. But, then God-2 also has a cause, God-3. This leads to an infinite regress of infinitely many beings, each creating a God-like being.
• The defender of the Cosmological Argument has to allow that God be self-caused but this undermines the premise that it is not possible that something exist uncaused.

• Using expected utility theory, any action that leads to infinite utility is always *the rational course action*, since any probability multiplied by infinity delivers infinite expected utility, where expected utility is determined by multiplying utility.
• P1. If believing in God has a higher expected utility than
• disbelieving in God, you ought to believe in God.
• according to utility theory
• P2. Believing in God has a higher expected utility than disbelieving in God.
• Results in pleasure in both cases of whether god exist or doesnt exist
•  C1. Therefore, you ought to believe in God.
• Based on P1 & P2

• Why would God reward someone who is faithful on the basis of its potential benefits?
• Could an argument like this actually cause someone to
• believe in God if they didn’t believe beforehand?
•  How could one successfully be faithful to the “correct” God,
• given that there are many “possible God” one might strive to
• be faithful to?

• aim to show that the objectivity of morality is best explained by the existence of good
• however if morality is obj. than moral claims (truths or false) is independent of our attitudes toward these claims
• many people believe that morality is not obj but believe in moral relativism.

• an action is right or wrong to the extent that it conforms or diverges from the moral code of the culture that performs it
• ie. -cannabalism in cannabilistic cultures

• moral progress: abolishing slavery is a good thing but at the time that slavery existed it was seen as good
• moral critics: MlK spaking out againt Jim Crow was TRUE, but if people belived that the laws at that time was good then MLK was wrong. -> every moral critic who critisizes moral code was is mistaken, which seems implausible.

• p1 Therre are obj. moral values
• p2 If God does exist, then obj. moral values do not exist
• C1. Therefore God exist

• P1. If God exists, God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
• Abandoning this premise would require compromising either the moral excellence or the power of God which are non -negotiable among theism.
• P2. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then it is not the case that there is unnecessary or undeserved suffering or evil in the world.
• (More strongly, it would always do the best thing.) If something is both all-powerful and all-good, then it should never be the case that anything bad happens.
•  P3. There is unnecessary or undeserved suffering or evil in the world.
• Children die of illness. & Innocent people are victims of violence.

 C1. Therefore, it is not the case that God exists

• Greater Good Response in light of Freedom
• There must be freedom, if there is to be moral goodness. And the price of giving humans freedom is that sometimes they will misuse it which result in evil
• -natural evil

• aims to explain,accounts for all phenoma.
• IE. if a friend did not show up to meet you for dinner and didnt answer your call the best explanation would cover all aspects.

• Powerful explanations are good, but explanations
• shouldn't be too powerful
• ie. you discover that your best physical theory has an unbalanced equation. You posit an “X particle.” You do the
• same in chemistry, biology, and everywhere else, 
• these are not genuine theories they do not improve our explanatory account of the world.

• A good explanation should not only explain the phenomena in question, but also suggest explanations for a wide range of other phenomena
• they have implications for a variety of theories
• (e.g.,Newton’s laws of motions provide a powerful explanation of planetary orbits as well as the motions of particles)

• The best explanation will improve our understanding & answer more questions than it raises.
•  ie friend didn’t meet you by
• claiming that your friend went to rob a bank, leads to more questions

• Given two otherwise equal explanations, the better explanation is the one that posits the fewest kinds of,
• laws, or modifications.

• i.e. Your friend not meeting you because they forgot vs. they forgot and they're in Chicago
• Easier to accept doesn't require much modifying or effort

Explanations that require us to abandon previously well-established beliefs are worse than otherwise equally good explanations that are compatible with our previous beliefs.

• IE: if your explanation requires you to attribute to your friend forgetting when they are among the most well organized people you know, this explanation is not likely to
• be a good one.

• Sample size
• Representative Bias: random samples represent the chateristics of the entire population
• Biased Sample: not representaive of the intended population (research methods)
• Biased results:letting bias creep in other ways (e.g., the
• phrasing of questions).

• Relevant analogies: The similarities between the objects under comparison to be important and relevant.
• Few strong disanalogies: There should be no significant disanalogies between the objects under comparison.(NO STRONG CONTRAST)
• Diverse objects: If a wide range of objects that have X, Y, Z, all have F, then our confidence that things with X, Y, Z have F should go up, so, if we know that object A has X, Y, Z our analogical argument improves.
• Strength of Conclusion: Like statistical generalizations, analogical arguments are better when their conclusion is weaker.

 makes an argument against a claim that wasn’t made in the first place by mischaracterizing the views or claim

ie. continental drift & the speed (being fast)

•  aim to show that a conclusion or premise if it’s true is absurd
• i.e. Tiger Woods being better than any golfer when he can't be better than himself--> better than any other golfer

• offering a limited number of choices and presenting them as the only  option even though there are clearly more options. 
• i.e. if you don't use social media you are shut in when in fact there are other options

• argues that the structure of the claim is bad or problematic.
• i.e. sking causing injuries so so children under 16 shouldnt be allowed to ski  is just like saying automobiles causes death so they should be banned.