PHIL 2010 Exam 2 Review

ontology

• the branch of metaphysics that addresses questions of being/existence

• a system that defines what exists and the methods/modes of classification and relationship between the entities within it

contingent existence

• something exists but could also have failed to exist

• its existence is not necessary and depends on other factors

contingent non-existence

something could have not existed meaning its existence is not necessary and depends on other factors

necessary existence

• the idea that a being or concept must exist and cannot not exist under any possible circumstances

• has no meaning

• Necessity: Applies to the relationships between propositions in

  language, mathematics, logic, and thought. (Applies to a priori

  subject matter

• Existence: Applies to things empirically discoverable. (a posteriori subject matter) “Existence” therefore applies to things whose being is determined through sense experience.

necessary non-existence

the concept of an object that cannot exist under any circumstances

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

• according to this, all beings are either explained by another (contingent/dependent beings), explained by themselves (necessary beings) God is in this category

• This, if true, eliminates the possibility of a being that is explained by nothing

• justification of this is empirical, therefore it is not logically necessary

• intuitively obvious, but reality has no obligation to conform to out intuitions

• arrived at inductively, therefore seems to involve principle of uniformity of nature

• seems to work when applied to parts of the universe but

  could misapplied to the whole- as suggested by the fallacy of

  composition in premise 5

Occam’s Razor

• when faced with competing hypotheses, the simpler explanation tends to be correct

• “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity"

• Named after William of Occam (1290- 1349). Sometimes called the principle of parsimony, it states that “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” ...connotes that useless or unnecessary information should be cut away from any explanation, so that, all things being equal, the simpler the hypothesis, the better.

agnosticism

we cannot know whether there is a God

pantheism

the belief that everything is God (the world is infused with god/spirit)

limited theism

god is extremely powerful, but not omnipotent or omniscient

atheism

there is no god at all

deism

an ingenious being created the world/reality and left it on its own

theism/monotheism

there exists an omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omnibenevolent (completely morally good) deity, who is providentially active in the world

polytheism

the belief in many gods (that may or may not be involved in the world)

Aristotle’s Four Causes - material

the matter/substance a thing is composed of

Aristotle’s Four Causes - efficient

the event that brings a thing into existence

Aristotle’s Four Causes - formal

the organization/pattern of matter in terms of a type of thing it presents itself as (eg. chair, tree, house, river)

Aristotle’s Four Causes - final

the end/purpose of a thing (teleology)

inductive arguments - number of entities criterion 

the greater the number of entities in the sample group that have the similarity in question, the greater the probability that the entities in the target group have the similarity in question

inductive arguments - number of similarities criterion

the greater the number of respects in which the sample group and the target group are similar, the greater the probability that the target group has the similarity in question 

inductive arguments - sample group 

the entities that we compare with the target group

inductive arguments - target group

the entities we are forming a conclusion about

complexity - heterogeneity

• many partedness

• something heterogeneous possesses many different types of parts

complexity - proficiency

• ability to perform a function

• something with this is useful for the accomplishment of a purpose

The Ontological Argument 

• a priori, deductive argument

• the very concept of God guarantees its existence

• attempts to demonstrate that God’s necessary existence can be derived from the analysis of the concept/definition of God

The Cosmological Argument

• a posteriori, deductive argument

• the universe exists

• something outside of the universe caused/explains its existence (God)

The Teleological Argument

• a posteriori, inductive argument

• complexity exists in the natural world

• complexity is evidence of intelligent design

• therefore there is probably an intelligent designer responsible for the complexity that we observe in the natural world

• aka - the Design Argument, Argument from Intelligent Design, sometimes just Intelligent Design

The Ontological Argument - Gaunilo’s criticism

• he argued that the same logic used to prove God’s existence could be used to prove the existence of a “perfect island” that does not exist in reality

The Ontological Argument - Anselm’s reply

• “A being than which nothing greater can be conceived” and “That, than which, nothing greater can be conceived.”

• Conceived- can form a coherent thought of. Alternatively- can be imagined.

• In more modern language- There is nothing greater than God than can be thought of/imagined.

• We can also say: God is the greatest possible being

• “Possible” here means that something could be actual but is silent as to whether or not it is in fact actual. In this context, it also is equivalent to conceivable.

The Ontological Argument - argument’s reasoning in premise/conclusion form

reasons that God, defined as the “greatest conceivable being,” must exist because the concpet of such a being existing only in the mind is less great than one that exists in both the mind and reality

The Ontological Argument - Existence is not a predicate/property objection

The Cosmological Argument - argument’s reasoning in premise/conclusion form - Aquinas’s version

The Cosmological Argument - argument’s reasoning in premise/conclusion form - Clarke’s version

The Cosmological Argument - Problems with Aquinas’s version

The Cosmological Argument - Objections to Clarke’s version

The Teleological Argument - argument’s reasoning in premise/conclusion form

The Teleological Argument - Hume’s criticisms

• number of entities criterion:

We have observed a very small part of the universe for a very

short time and very imperfectly (we make mistakes). In other

words, our sample group (what we have observed- human-

made machines) is far too small relative to the target group

(the universe itself and all the complexity within it). There is a

theoretically unlimited number of possible sources of

complexity. Human intelligence is but one of them.

Therefore, assertion that the cause of complexity in all of the

universe is due to a mind like ours is unjustified

anthropomorphism- (attributing human characteristics to

non-human entities).

• number of similarities criterion:

The teleological argument maintains that the designing

intelligence is similar to human intelligence.

a) Human intelligence is not infinite (in either capacity

or ability)- therefore it is more probable that the

designer’s intelligence is not infinite.

b) Human intelligence is not perfect- therefore it is

more probable that the designing intelligence is not

perfect.

c) When humans make machines, several humans

working together, over time, produce them.

Modifying, improving, etc. -Therefore, it is more

likely that there is more than one intelligent

designer that works with others over time

modifying, improving, etc., the design we see in the

natural world.

The Teleological Argument - Criticism regarding the origin of design

-The Tel. Arg. does not answer the question of what

causes complexity in the natural world. Instead, it just

delays it.

-The intelligent designer must possess at least as much

complexity as the complexity it produces in the natural

world.

Question- What caused the complexity in the intelligent

designer?

Three possible responses seem available to the proponent

of the design argument, and each seem problematic:

1. Something unintelligent (and therefore

noncomplex) is responsible for the complexity in

the intelligent designer.

Response to response: Then we can also say that

something unintelligent produced the complexity in

the natural world. Via Occam’s Razor*, this

hypothesis is more likely to be true because it is

simpler.

2. Something intelligent (and therefore complex) is

responsible for the complexity in the intelligent

designer.

Response to response: Then we have an infinite

regress of designers (what/who designed the designer

of the designer? (etc., ad infinitum)

3. The designer exists necessarily- explains its own

existence

Response to response: This is no longer the

teleological argument, this claim relies upon the

reasoning of another argument- the cosmological

argument (which is a deductive argument and has

completely different premises)