Philosophy of Religion (clanton/lipscomb)

Different modes of existence

things that DO exist but could NOT exist

things that DON’T exist but COULD exist

things that COULDN’T exist

things that exist NECESSARILY and couldn’t not exist

(What) Anselm’s Ontological Argument

By God we mean TTWNGCBC

We understand the term, therefore TTWNGCBC exists in understanding

Existence can either be solely in understanding, or in reality as well

Existing in both is greater

So if TTWNGCBC exists only in understanding, then something greater could exist

So, it must exist in reality

therefore, God exists

(Who) Ontological Argument

Anselm

(Who) Island objection

Gaunilo

(What) Kant’s Objection to Anselm

Existence is not a predicate

Then existence can’s be counted as a '“great-making” property

Thus, the ontological argument is unsound

(Who) Existence isn’t a predicate

Kant

(What) WLC’s Ontological Rendition

It’s possible an unsurpassable being exists

That means it exists in some possible world

If it exists in one, it exists in all

If it exists in every world, that includes ours

if its in our world then it exists

therefore God exists

(Who) rendition of Platinga’s ontological argument

William Lane-Craig

(What) The worry about modal arguments

A dependency on possibility can be viewed as question begging

(What) Kalam Cosmological Argument

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist

Therefore, the universe has a cause

The best explanation for that is that God exists

Thus, God exist

(Who) Kalam Cosmological Argument

Craig

(What) Craig’s first case

Infinite number cannot exist

Beginning-less implies infinite

If no infinite, then there must be a beginning

(HH)

(What) Craig’s second Case

Series of events is added

Things that are added together cannot be infinite

Series of events in time cannot be infinite

(Who) objects Craig’s Kalam

Draper

(What) Draper’s objection to Craig’s 2nd case

Why should we assume adding one member to the next has to start with a finite number?

(What) Draper’s objection to Craig’s 1st case

Craig assumes inconsistency where it doesn’t have to exist (HH)

(EXAM Q) Does the Kalam equivocate?

Equivocate - inconsistency in the use of a word in a grammatical sense

Idea - Begins to exist is in time, began to exist could mean with time

Q - Does this mean anything?

(What) Watchmaker

We observe the complexity of a watch, and that if different, it wouldn’t operate the same to accomplish its intended teleological ends

This implies an intelligent watchmaker with teleological ends

So probably the watch had an intelligent designer

The universe is also a complex system geared towards teleological ends

Thus it probably had an intelligent designer.

(What) Philo’s objections to Watchmaker

1. Watch and Universe are too different

2. Parts to whole: can’t infer from a part of the universe to the whole thing

3. There’s no reason that human intelligence should be the hypothesis of choice

4. Doesn’t get you “your God” only the possibility of a higher power

(Who) Objection to Watchmaker

Philo

(What) Fine Tuning Data

NecessaryObservations about the precise functions of the universe

1. Laws of Nature

2. Constants of Physics

3. Initial Conditions

(What) Theistic Hypothesis

There’s a God who’s responsible for the universe

(What) Single-Universe Atheistic Hypothesis

No God, one universe

(What) Many-Universe Atheistic Hypothesis

Large array of universes, Random tunings

(What) FT argument

If theisticl is true then FTD is not improbable

If SUAH is true then FTD is improbable

Data supports FTD

FTD supports theistic

(Who) Fine Tuning Argument

Collins

Common objections to FTA

1. Perhaps there’s a more fundamental law that dictates FTD

2. Perhaps there are other lifeforms that don’t require it

3. If the Universe was finely tuned, then we wouldn’t be around to notice it

4. If the FT of the universe needs an explanation, so would the FT of the creator

(What) CD Broad for Religious Experience

Theres agreement among mystics about what they’ve experienced

That agreement is either veridical or delusive

Widespread agreement implies veridicality

NO reason to think ALL are delusive

therefpre some are reasonably veridical

Naturalism is probably false

(Who) Religious experience

CD Broad

(Who) Formulation of argument for religious experience

Richard swineburg

(What) Swineburg’s formulation

It has seemed to people that they’ve experienced God

Unless having a reason to believe otherwise, then things are as they seem

No reason ALL are delusiveAt least some are reasonable

Reason to believe others

Some testimonies have no reason to doubt

Some must be veridical

(Who) Objection to B3

WIlliam Rowe

(What) objection to B3

How to know if an experience is delusive

(What) WIlliam James Compromise

Mystics are justified in viewing their own experience as veridical, not the non-mystic

(Who) Objection to Broad

Pojman

(What) Objection to Broad

1. There’s no considerable agreement among mystics, too many types of religious experience.

2. justification in belief is circular, 

3. not confirmed in the same way as perceptual experience.