Philo final review sheet - What is the ontological...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
What are the main objections to it? Simple Version: 1. If God really exists, he’d be better than if he is only in our heads. 2. So, if God only exists in our heads we’d be able to something better-namely, a God who exists. 3. But God is the best thing we can imagine. ----- Conclusion: God really exists. Formal Version: St. Anselm 1. Anything that can be conceived exists in the understanding and can be conceived to exist in reality. 2. God can be conceived and nothing greater can be. 3. God exists in the understanding and can be conceived to exist in reality (1,2) 4. Anything that exists in reality is greater than a counterpoint that merely exists in the understanding. 5. If God only existed in the understanding and not in reality, we could conceive of something greater (3, 4). ----- Conclusion: God exists (3, 5). Objections: To Formal Version Premise 2: God cannot be conceived (logically incoherent; too much for our puny minds) Premise 4: How can we really compare greatness of existent versus nonexistent things? Counterexample: If a perfect island can be conceived, by ontological argument, it must exist. Reject move to Conclusion: Based on island counterexample; basically all this argument is saying is that the concept of an existing God is better, not proving that God exists; Aquinas’s objection: does not tell us anything about “fact” of God’s existence. What is the cosmological argument? What are the main objections to it? Argument (Aquinas): “First Cause” 1. Everything has a cause. 2. Nothing is self-caused (causes itself) 3. The series of causes does not stretch back infinitely far. 4. So there must be a “first cause” (1,2,3) ----- Conclusion: God exists (He’s the “First Cause”) Objections: Category 1: Accept argument for first cause, but reject it as an argument for the existence of a traditional God. -first cause=Big Bang? -Nasty deity? - Current Existence (Maybe God was the first cause, but what’s to say He’s still here?) Category 2: Not a good argument for the existence of a first cause (reject the premises) -Reject Premise 1: Not everything is caused; some things are uncaused. -Reject Premise 2: Some things are self-caused. -Reject Premise 3: Why can’t the series stretch infinitely far Bertrand Russell: Dilemma between premises 1 and 4. If premise 1 is kept, premise 4 must be rejected (i.e. if everything must have a cause, God must have a cause as well) If premise 1 is rejected, then not everything has a cause, and that thing that doesn’t have a cause doesn’t have to be God (could be the world). What is the teleological argument? What are the main objections to it? Argument: Paley
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 18

Philo final review sheet - What is the ontological...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online