metaphysics bits urgent

deductive arg for god

is valid, sound, and proof, the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed if is sound (premises are true and the arg is valid) eg ontological args

inductive arg for god

is an induction, strong, the truth of the conclusion is probable if the arg is cogent (true premises leading to a conclusion that is very probably true based on the weight of evidence given in the premises)

kant objection existence not a predicate

descartes says that if god always exists it is not possible to separate him from his existence, i cannot separate him from his existence like how i cant separate a triangle from its 3 sides

1) a genuine predicate adds to our conception of a subject and helps to determine it

2) existence does not add to our conception of a subject or help to determine it

3) therefore existence is not a genuine predicate

eg ‘a triangle has 3 sides’ tells us about the subject, but ‘god exists’ does not since existence is not a property and doesnt add anything to the concept of god like omnipotence or omniscience does

infinite regress meaning

a sequence of reasoning or justification which can never come to an end

kalam understanding of infinite regress

it is not possible for there to be an infinite series which is complete/has an end to it because an infinite series has no end

if the universe were eternal, we would have already have passed through an infinite amount of time (the past history of the world would be infinite) but an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed because it is infinite

cantor view that infinite regress is possible

an actual infinite is possible in the form of an infinite set

Georg Cantor claimed that there are infinite sets, some of which are countable (such as the set of natural numbers) i.e. put into a list of infinite length and some of which are uncountable (e.g. the set of real numbers)

aquinas understanding of infinite regress

In his Second Way Aquinas argues that there cannot be an infinite regress of things causing other things to exist because if this were the case there no First Cause (which contradicts premise 1) and no subsequent causes (i.e. nothing would now exist) which is false.

Aquinas thought that an infinite regress would lack causal efficacy because there would be nothing to start the series and this is why he rejects it.

nielson view possibility of infinite regress

Nielson claims that Aquinas misunderstands the notion of an infinite series, incorrectly seeing it as a very long series with a first member, which, if removed would lead to there being no cause of the whole series.

If this were true, then this would contradict the need for a First Cause and leave us with the problem of explaining the subsequent causes. Clearly, however, in a genuine infinite series this supposed ‘first cause’ could neither be identified or removed from the series and therefore there is no issue with explaining the ‘subsequent’ members of the series.

aquinas 3rd way logical form

1) In the natural (physical) world we find things which are contingent.

2) At ‘one time’ it was possible that nothing existed – this is because if there is nothing in the world that always exists, there is no reason why something should always exist rather than nothing.

3) If there were no contingent entities in existence in the world then no entities could come into existence because there would be nothing to bring them into existence.

4) Therefore there would be nothing in existence now.

5) However there are things in existence now.

6) Therefore there must be a being who is necessary who brings all contingent things into existence.

7) Therefore there must be a being who is necessary in himself.

8) Therefore God exists.

leibniz sufficient reason arg logical form

1) the world is a totality of contingent things/contingent facts

2) there must be a reason why this set of contingent things exist/this set of contingent facts are true rather than not

3) the reason/explanation cannot be found in the aggregate of the individual explanations/reasons for the totality of contingent beings/facts because this would not be a complete explanation

4) the explanation for the set of contingent truths must lie outisde of the world

5) there must be being who is not contingent i.e. who is necessary who provides this explanation

6) therefore god exists

humes issue with causal principle his fork

issue for all cosmo args from causation

isnt a matter of fact because asserting that every event has a cause goes far beyond what our experience justifies so cant be known a posteriori

the only things that are certain are relations of ideas, test of this is if denial involves a contradiction, ‘every event has a cause’ isnt contradictory because we can conceive of events that have no cause

fallacy of composition issue for cosmo args

aquinas’ second way because he claims that because the entities in the universe have a cause of their existence, the totality of entities also requires a cause of its existence

lebniz’s version because he claims that because the world is made up of contingent things/facts the world in its totality is contingent

both commit the fallacy but just because individual things have a certain property we cannot conclude that the universe itself also has this property

plantinga free will defence 2b

it is possible that since god created creatures who are significantly free, it was not in his power to create a world with moral good but no evil

SD contradicting principle of conservation of energy

The Principle of the Conservation of energy states that the amount of energy in the Universe stays constant.​

Physical changes are a movement of energy from one part of the universe to another part of the universe.​

Causation can only happen through the transfer of energy.​

4) Therefore if the mind causally interacted with the physical, it could only do so by adding energy to the Universe.​

5) Conclusion (4) contradicts (1).​

6) Therefore SD contradicts the Principle of the Conservation of Energy​

SD contradicting principle of causal closure

The Principle of Causal Closure states that everything that happens within the physical Universe is causally determined by something else in the physical universe.​

Everything in the physical universe is physical.​

Therefore mental causation is not possible. ​

Therefore, SD contradicts the Principle of Causal Closure​

behaviourism multiple realisability logical form

(1) People with the same mental state behave differently​

(2) It is not possible to draw up a finite list of hypothetical conditions or conditions of verification that describe all the ways a person with mental state x behave.​

Therefore (3) the claim that mental states are analytically reducible to behaviour/behavioural dispositions is false.​

Therefore (4) both hard and soft philosophical behaviourism are false.​

conceivability arg as objection to behaviourism logical form

1. If it is possible to conceive of mental states as separate from physical behaviour (or dispositions), then mental states cannot be analytically reducible to physical behaviour (or disposition).​

2. We can conceive of mental states as separate from physical behaviour (or dispositions to behave)​

Therefore, (3) the mind is not analytically reducible to physical behaviour (or dispositions to behave)​

Therefore, (4) philosophical behaviourism is false.​

behaviourism issue asymmetry logical form

(1) Philosophical Behaviourism’s analysis of mental states as behavioural dispositions and behaviours rules out any asymmetry between knowledge of my own mental states and knowledge of the mental states of others

(2) It is obvious that there is an asymmetry between the knowledge of my own mental states and my knowledge of the mental states of others

Therefore (3) Philosophical Behaviourism is false.

property dualism main claims

claim that there are at least some mental properties that are neither reducible to nor supervenient upon physical properties.

denies the existence of mental substance, however it does claim that there are mental properties, these mental properties are possessed by physical substances (human beings, for example) but they are a fundamentally different type of property from physical properties

hume design arg logical form

the world is like a machine because like a machine, its component parts are adjusted to each other to achieve an end

machines have the feature of adjustment of means to ends because they were designed by an intelligent mind

similar effects have similar causes

therefore the world has the feature of adjustment of means to ends because it was designed by an intelligent mind

therefore the world has been made by an intelligent deity

therefore god exists

universe a unique case objection to design args

effects humes arg cause says like effects have like causes, but my knowledge that one event is caused by another is established by induction but this type of inference is not possible in the case of the universe because it is unique

we can only infer that one thing causes another if we have observed that they are constantly conjoined

we have not observed examples of worlds being designed by god

therefore we cannot infer that the cause of design in the world is god

design arg from analogy

aim to establish that god exists by arguing that the world resembles human designed objects in an important way, because the cause of this in manmade objects is a designer the cause of it in natural objects is also a designer

design arg from spatial order

use the fact that we observe some things in nature which are compromised of parts which are ordered spatially in such a way that they achieve a purpose, this spatial order must have been produced by an intelligent mind therefore god exists

design arg from temporal order/regularity

use the fact the universe is governed by a simple set of regular laws, the ‘order’ is regularity, and the regularity is a striking feature of the universe which requires explanation and the best explanation for this is a personal being ie God

falsification principle

claims that a proposition is only cognitive and therefore meaningful if there is a possible state of affairs which will falsify it, doesnt mean the proposition in fact needs to be proved false only that it must be possible to identify what would make it false

mitchell view on religious language

cognitivist, says religious assertions are not like other types of assertions which are based on observations, belief in god is belief in a being with whom someone has a personal relationship and in whom one has faith and trust, so is more reasonable for the believer not to accept them as being conclusively falsifiable than it would be for those based on observation,

religious believers do recognise that evil counts against the claim that ‘god loves us’, but the theist will attempt to offer an explanation for evil not a qualification for the claim that ‘god loves us’

whose parable is whose

hick - celestial city (verifiable and meaningful)

flew - gardener (not falsifiable and not meaningful)

hare - lunatic (not falsifiable but meaningful)

mitchell - partisan (falsifiable but not conclusively and meaningful)

property dualism general claim

there are at least some mental properties that are neither reducible to nor supervenient upon physical properties

china brain logical form

1. If functionalism is true, the human mind is nothing more than a complex set of functional states that produces various outputs, given various inputs.

2. The population of China could act temporarily as a set of functional states that produce the same inputs into outputs as the human brain.

3. China could therefore form a conscious mind.

4. Premise 3 is absurd.

Therefore (5) functionalism is false.

MBTIT multiple realisability logical form

A certain type of mental state could be realized by a range of different types of brain states​

Therefore, there are certain types of mental states that are not reducible to a specific types of brain state. ​

Therefore mental states are not ontological reducible to brain states.​

Therefore, Type Identity Theory is false.

Eg if MS A is identical with BS 1 in the human brain, what do we do about situations where a dog has MS A but does not possess BS 1 because their brain does not have a a BS 1, rather their pain is BS 2 in dog brain

conceivability arg logical form

I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as something that thinks and isn’t extended (the mind).

2) I have a clear and distinct idea of body as something that is extended and does not think (the body).

3) If I have a clear and distinct thought of something, it is possible for that thing to exist independently (it contains no logical contradiction).

Therefore (4) it’s possible for the mind (something that thinks and isn’t extended), and for the body (something extended and does not think) to exist independently of one another.

5)A substance is something that can exist independently of any other thing.

6) Therefore, mind and body are two distinct substances

evidential problem of evil

the existence of certain types and amounts of evil make it probable that the theist god does not exist and/or they provide the atheist with rational support for her view that god does not exist

are instances of suffering which an omnipotent and omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or preventing some evil equally bad or worse

eg a fawn trapped in a forest fire that is horribly burned for several days before death relieves its suffering, this type of evil is such that we can see no reason for it in terms of producing a greater good, doesnt prove there isnt a greater reason but gives us good rational grounds for thinking it and provides evidence for atheism

hick soul making response

claims that god created us as imperfect but free beings whose purpose is to grow into the likeness of god ie we will develop personal and moral characteristics which make us morally perfect, these characteristics include compassion, generosity, courage and so on

humans have the following qualities:

1) humans must be capable of sin

2) humans will have to be created at an epistemic distance from god

3) humans must be created with free will

god wants humans to freely achieve a state of moral perfection as a result of their own actions, he needs to create a world which will achieve this purpose and give them opportunities to do this, a world which will be a vale of soul making, this world must contain potential for suffering

gods role is not to create a hedonistic paradise for humans as if he is a kindly pet owner who must make our living conditions such that we come to no harm, if god had created a world like this there would be no immoral actions eg if someone tried to murder someone else their bullet would melt in the air and if someone fell from a building they would float to the ground, and also would be no moral actions since evil is a necessary condition for the existence of second order goods such as courage, compassion etc, is not possible for courage to exist without fear

why mavrodes says b is contradictory in paradox of stone

is equivalent to saying ‘there is a stone which is too heavy for a being whose power means he can lift anything’, is an impossible action because it is self-contradictory and god should not be expected to perform a contradictory action

savage reframing of paradox

if x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift, then necessarily, there is at least one task that x cannot perform (create the stone in question)

open theist propositions accepted

1) god does not have foreknowledge because foreknowledge is not possible

2) it is not necessary for an omniscient god to know the future

eternal vs everlasting

eternal outside of time, everlasting within time

sempiternal vs omnitemporal

sempiternal is located in physical time but exists at all points in physical time, omnitemporal means exists in metaphysical rather than physical time

conceptual interaction issue logical form

Physical things only move if they are pushed​

Only something that is extended and can touch that thing that is moved can exert such a force.​

The mind has no extension, and cannot touch a physical thing.​

Therefore, (4) the mind cannot move the body​.

mary ability knowledge counter objection

Mary does gain proposition knowledge. One example of a proposition that Mary gains is: “This is what red looks like”. Or “That tomato is red”. These are statemetns which describe the world around Mary and are capable of being true or false. Therefore they are propositions.

response to inverted qualia bad empirical arg

If it is an empirical argument then it is a poor one. There is no evidence that identical brain function gives rise to differing conscious experiences. When a person is colourblind, there is a physical difference compared to someone with normal colour perception.

Churchland argues that it’s highly unlikely that functional identity really is possible for Fred and Ted. There will be small but crucial differences in their inputs and outputs. For example, Fred would see red as closer to orange, whereas Ted would think red was closer to blue.

introspective self knowledge issue epiphenomenalism

1. It’s intuitively obvious that I have introspective self-knowledge of my own mental states.

2. Introspective self-knowledge requires my mental states to have causal powers (because if mental states are casually inert, they could not cause my knowledge of them.)

3. Therefore mental states do have causal powers

4. Therefore epiphenomenalism is false.

natural selection objection to epiphenomenalism

1. A property that has no causal powers cannot equip us with any advantage in the processes of natural selection.

2. Epiphenomenenal mental states have no causal powers.

3. Therefore, epiphenomenal mental states could not have evolved through natural selection, and cannot exist.

4. Therefore, epiphenomenalism is false.

example of brain states causal powers not mental states epiphenomenalism

We see Cowboy A throw a punch at Cowboy B, and Cowboy B falls to the ground. It looks like the punch causes Cowboy B to fall, because the actions are simultaneous, but there is no actual causal connection between the punch and the fall.

response with unique case issue

doesnt fit with modern scientific explanations - cosmologists draw conclusions about the origins of the universe and anthropologists about the origins of the human race even though both are unique cases, why would there be anything else god created if god created everything?

why we can deny principle of sufficient reason

many are happy to claim that there are some things which are just brute facts, ontological ultimates which do not require further explanation, the theist accepts one ie God

why paley says spatial disorder doesnt disprove god

happiness outweighs defects/unhappiness in the natural world, it enables living creatures to be alive rather than ‘dead matter’ which benefits them, god added benefits to make up for defects