Phil 112 Notes

Phil 112 Notes - 6/26/07 Argument- Cluster of assertions...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

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

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

Unformatted text preview: 6/26/07 Argument- Cluster of assertions called premises that lead to a conclusion. Deductive Argument- Argument in which it is alleged that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Validity (of a deductive argument) - If the premises, if true, do lead to the asserted conclusion, then the argument is valid. Validity does not guarantee truth! Sound- An argument is sound if it is valid AND all the premises are true. If anything at all exists, then God exists. Some things do exist. Therefore, God exists. If I am in SB, then I'm not in LA. I am in SB. Therefore, I am not in LA.--- Sound All A's are B's. All B's are C's. Therefore, All A's are C's.--- Valid Most A's are B's. Most B's are C's. Therefore, most A's are C's.--- INVALID Lecture 3 Final remarks about the causal argument Argument by Aquinas, relies on the general intuition of it all had to come from somewhere Objection is the infinite regress- skeptics objection Further readings on infinite regress: Pojman 24-47 by Craig Reponse by P. Draper One other issue needs to be discussed with the 1st cause argument Pure reasoning and scientific investigation (2 ways of finding out). In math, you could inquire both ways But to inquire if my wife is home, pure reasoning is not sufficient, and must go through empirical investigation. Scientist have proven by empirical investigation that there was a big bang. Is this a fist cause? Some people say it is, so we have discovered 1st cause through empirical investigation, but this even makes the leap more clear that the 1st cause is God, because establishing a big bang, does not establish God What caused the big bang? But if you take this position, then you are stuck in the infinite regress problem, where something proceeds another forever So the big bang will not help for his causal argument for the existence of God Argument from contingency/dependency Following the paper by Rowe More powerful argument that the causal argument Two forms for the argument from contingency: 1) represented by Aquinas 3rd way (we will not look at this 2) we will look at Leibniz argument, has 2 parts a. Establish the existence of a necessary being (a being who very nature is such that its non-existence is impossible, it must exist. An analogy is a triangles nature cannot fail to have 3 sides. Nature of a round square is that it cannot exist, a necessary being is the opposite of this) b. 2nd part is that this necessary being is God. (there is a leap here too, but we will focus on the 1st part now) technical terms before we start the argument: Grasp the distinction between dependent being and an independent being Dependent being is a being that has the reason of its existence lying in the causal power of some other being. Almost everything is an dependant being- we are dependant being, we are to the causal power of our parents, the clock to the clock maker The independent being is a being that has the reason of its existence lying in its very nature. (the reason for a triangle having three sideslying in its very nature....
View Full Document

Page1 / 14

Phil 112 Notes - 6/26/07 Argument- Cluster of assertions...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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