All of Epistemology

define ability knowledge

knowledge where you know how to do something eg riding a bike

define acquaintance knowledge

knowledge where you know of something eg i know fred well

define propositional knowledge

knowledge where you know that something is the case eg Paris is the capital of France

what is a real definition?

a real definition picks out the real essence of a concept. not all concepts have real essences, only concepts with a true internal nature do and not concepts with a subjective external nature.

what is philosophical/ conceptual analysis?

defining a concept by exploring what conditions are necessary and sufficient for a true example of that concept to occur eg being unmarried and male are the necessary conditions to be a bachelor and since every unmarried man is a bachelor they are also the sufficient conditions

what does ZAGZEBSKI say are pitfalls of definitions?

circular - when the definition includes the term being defined

obscure - terms in the definition should not be more obscure than the original term

negative - defining a term by what it is not

ad hoc - coming up with a definition that is specific to meeting a specific problem

how does Zagzebski say knowledge should be defined? (in terms of the nature of definition)

should treat knowledge as though it has a real definition unless proven it does not and should define knowledge through conceptual analysis

who came up with the tripartite definition of knowledge?

Plato

what is the tripartite definition of knowledge?

knowledge is a justified true belief

what are the criticisms to the tripartite definition of knowledge?

conditions not being necessary

conditions are not sufficient (Gettier Case 1 and 2)

what is the criticism that belief is not a necessary condition? and its counterargument?

imagine John and Claire are driving to London

John does not know the way to London but Claire and her dad drive to London every week

Claire says she does not know the way to London but her dad says she does

while on the road, Claire manages to successfully drive to London

so it can be argued she knew the way to London without believing it

CA: it is an example of ability knowledge

what is the criticism that truth is not a necessary condition? and its counter example?

there are different theories on truth

correspondence theory of truth - a belief is true if it corresponds to what actually is the case in the world eg the earth is round

coherence theory of truth - a belief is true if it is part of the web of beliefs held true by society eg the belief the world was flat a few centuries ago

so knowledge doesn’t have to be true as what may seem true to us may actually be false like the earth being flat

CA: regardless of what theory is used, the truth is still required, it just means one theory is more lenient to call a statement knowledge than the other eg coherence allows the earth is flat to be knowledge while correspondence doesn’t but they still believe the statement needs to be thought of as true

what is the criticism that justification is not a necessary condition?

john has a rare gift where he can guess the date of any date

you ask him to correctly predict the day of 15/03/2123 and he correctly says monday

john does not know how he does this but he is always correct

so he has no justification but he can confidently say he has knowledge of these days

so justification is not necessary

outline Gettier Case 1

Smith and Jones interview for a job

s hears that j will get the job

s sees j has 10 coins in his pocket

s believes that ‘the man who will get this job has 10 coins in his pocket’

s gets the job instead

when s checks his pocket he finds out he has 10 coins in them

his belief was justified as he heard the interviewer say Jones will get the job and saw ten coins in Jones’ pocket and was true as the man who got the job did have ten coins in his pocket

but this wasn’t knowledge as it was luck/coincidence which made Smith’s belief correct

so justified, true beliefs are not sufficient conditions

outline Gettier Case 2

Smith believes Jones has a Ford since he saw him drive around in one

So S believes ‘ either J has a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona’

It turns out the J doesn’t have a Ford but Brown was in Barcelona

So S’s statement is still true as one of his statements in the disjunction introduction and it was a justified belief

but it isn’t knowledge as it was luck/ coincidence that made it true and Plato says we can not award knowledge to anyone on the basis of luck

so justified true belief is are not sufficient conditions

what are the alternative definitions of knowledge?

JTB + no false lemmas

infallibilism

reliabilism

virtue epistemology

what is infallibilism?

knowledge is what cannot be rationally doubted. infallibilists argue we can know logical truths, facts about our mind and some things through careful undoubtable reasoning (eg cogito ergo sum)

what are the strengths of infallibilism?

overcomes all Gettier cases and fake barn county because they leave room for doubt

what is a criticism of infallibilism?

since almost everything has doubts then almost nothing can be counted as knowledge which doesn’t seem right

it gives a prescriptive definition (what something should be) rather than a descriptive definition (what something actually is)

so infallibilism leaves behind the very concept we were trying to define in the first place

outline justified true belief and no false lemmas

James has knowledge of P if:

P is true

James believes that P is true

James’s belief of P is justified

James did not infer P from anything false (any false lemma)

what is the strength of JTB + no false lemmas?

avoids gettier case 1 as Smith’s belief was inferred from the false lemma that Jones would get the job and so is not knowledge

avoids Gettier case 2 as Smith’s beliefe was inferred from the false lemma that Jones owned a Ford and so is not knowledge

what is the criticism to JTB + no false lemmas?

fake barn county:

in fake barn county, the locals create fake barns

Henry drives through this county and as he is driving he often thinks ‘There’s a barn’ while looking at the fake barns

on one occasion, Henry spots the one real barn and believes “There’s a barn”

this statement was a justified true belief that was not based off of any false lemma but it still isn’t knowledge as it was true down to luck

so JTB + no false lemmas does not have sufficient conditions

outline Zagzebski’s virtue epistemology

James knows P if:

James believes P

James’ belief of P arises from an act of intellectual virtue

(the truth of P is implied by the act of intellectual virtue)

outline Sosa’s Virtue Epistemology

James knows P if:

P is true

James believes P

James’ true belief of P is a result of James exercising his intellectual virtue

define intellectual virtue

skill where you find out the truth because it was your intent ( the same way moral virtue is the skill where you do good because you intended to do good)

how does Sosa explain his third point in his virtue epistemology?

a virtuous shot in archery is:

accurate - hits target

adroit - archer is skillful and shoots the arrow well

apt - the arrow hits the target because it was shot well

Sosa argues a belief is knowledge when it is apt (accurate because it is adroit)

so the belief must be accurate (true), adroit (believer is skillful and uses reliable method) and apt (belief is found to be true because believer used reliable methods) for it to be knowledge

why does Zagzebski think virtue epistemology beats other theories of knowledge?

theories which state knowledge is a true belief and some third condition will always fail to problems like Gettier cases as they always have the possibility of being true due to luck. this is because the truth and third condition are never linked but virtue epistemology does link the truth and the third condition.

what are the criticisms for virtue epistemology?

children and animals

fake barn county

what is the children and animals criticism to virtue epistemology? and its counter argument?

since children and animals have no concept of truth or rationality, they have no intellectual virtue meaning they would not be able to possess knowledge

but this isn’t the case eg a baby knows that if it cries it will be fed milk

CA: is ability knowledge

what is the fake barn county criticism to virtue epistemology? and its counter argument?

Henry’s belief is accurate as it was a barn

Henry’s belief is adroit because he has the reliable method of seeing

it can be argued that Henry’s belief is apt and so is knowledge according to virtue epistemology

CA: can be argued it isn’t completely apt as it was also caused by luck and not reliable methods, (NOZICK’S sensitivity condition) if the barn had been fake Henry would still have said it was a real barn

outline reliabilism

James knows P if

P is true

James believes in P

James’ belief in P is caused by a reliable method

define reliable method

method which produces high percentage of true beliefs

what is the strength of reliabilism?

allows children and animals to have knowledge eg a baby knows that when it cries it will get milk because it has reliable method of testing this (crying and getting milk)

what are the criticisms to reliabilism?

Gettier Cases

Fake Barn County

definition of reliable methods is too circular

what are the Gettier and fake barn county criticisms to reliabilism?

Smith uses the reliable method of hearing/ seeing when forming his true beliefs eg hearing Jones will get the job, seeing ten coins in Jones’ pocket, seeing Jones drive a Ford

Henry also uses the reliable method of seeing when forming his belief that there is a barn

what is the counter argument to Gettier problems with reliabilism? and its response?

we can argue that the process which Smith used is inferring information from a false lemma which is not a reliable method

so the gettier cases are not cases of knowledge according to reliabilism

CA: raises the problem of how specific a process should be when examined for being reliable

eg when i believe i see my friend across the street, should i say the process i am using is just seeing or seeing in the rain or seeing from a distance of 10m etc

even though my actions and belief are the same, there are different types of processes i could choose from with different reliabilities so reliabilism doesn’t work as it can argue the same thing to be knowledge and not be knowledge

what is the counter argument to fake barn county? (Reliabilism)

NOZICK’S sensitivity condition:

a process is reliable as long as if P were false, S would not believe P

so if Henry’s process of seeing the barn was actually reliable, if the barn were fake he would not have believed that he was seeing a real barn

however we know that Henry would still have believed he was seeing a real barn as he believed he was seeing a real barn when looking at all the other fake barns

so Henry was not using a reliable method and so his case does not count as knowledge according to reliabilism

what is the criticism that reliabilism is circular?

ZAGZEBSKI said that a definition must avoid being circular to be successful

reliabilism argues that for something to be true, it must be reliable

for something to be reliable, it must produce true results

define direct realism

the external world exists independently of the mind and we perceive the external world directly eg when i see a tree i am seeing a tree that exists in the external world the exact same way i am perceiving it

define mind independent objects

objects which exist in the external world and aren’t reliant on the mind to exist

what are the criticisms to direct realism?

RUSSELL: perceptual variation

illusion

hallucination

time lag

what is the argument from perceptual variation?

RUSSELL: if i look at a table directly above it i will see a rectangle

if i look at the same table from a few metres away, i will see a kite

it can’t be both shapes at the same time

so one of these perceptions is not perceiving the table directly

so there are differences between our perception and reality

but direct realism claims reality and perception are the same so direct realism is wrong

what is the counter argument to perceptual variation?

mind independent objects can have relational properties

relational properties are properties which vary in relation to something else

eg london has the mind independent relational property of being south to leeds but this does not mean london has the property of southness to all perceivers, it also has the mind independent property of being north to anyone below it

so the table has both the mind independent relational properties of being kite and square shaped, it just depends on your position which one you perceive

so you are still directly perceiving a mind independent property which is what direct realism claims

what is the argument from illusion? and its counter argument?

direct realism says that we see the world exactly as what it is

but illusions show that we can perceive the world differently to how it actually is

eg a pencil in water looks bent but it is actually straight

so there is a difference between perception and reality

CA: example of relational properties eg pencil has the relational property of looking bent

what is the argument from hallucination? and its counter argument?

during hallucinations we perceive things which aren’t there

eg schizophrenics sometimes see people who don’t exist

the external world is not directly causing this perception as the object does not exist

so direct realism does not work

CA: hallucinations do not cover all of our sense so we do not perceive them fully as we would with mind independent objects

what is the time lag argument? and its counter argument?

it takes around 8 minutes for light to reach the earth from the sun

so when you look at the sun you see it 8 minutes ago

if there was an explosion you would still see the sun as it is now for 8 minutes even though it would no longer exist

so we don’t perceive everything directly

CA: what you perceive is still a direct mind independent object

how you perceive it is not direct but that does not matter

define sense data

the content of a perceptual experience, is caused by the external world and represents it (also called the veil of perception as it is what seperates the external world and our perceived world)

define indirect realism

there is an external world that exists independently of the mind and we perceive the world indirectly via our sense data. the external world and the world we perceive are two different things.

define primary qualities

qualities that are inherent in the object itself (mind independent) eg size, shape

define secondary qualities

powers of objects to cause sensations in humans (mind dependent) eg colour, smell

what is an example which helps explain primary and secondary qualities?

it is theorised that different smells are caused by different shapes of molecules which bind to receptors

these molecules have the primary quality of their shape

but they do not have the primary quality of being coated in a smelly substance - the shape has the potential to cause the sensation of smell in humans

this potential is a secondary quality

so smell is a secondary quality

who came up with primary and secondary qualities?

LOCKE

how do primary and secondary qualities show indirect realism is better than direct realism?

a direct realist would argue that secondary qualities like colour are inherent in objects themselves since we perceive them

however we know this is wrong since secondary qualities change like when colour disappears in a dark room

indirect realists explain this occurrence with the distinction of primary and secondary qualities since secondary qualities are mind dependent like the sense data which indirect realists say we have

what are the criticisms to indirect realism?

scepticism about the existence of mind independent objects ( DESCARTES evil demon)

BERKELEY scepticism about the nature of mind independent objects

what is the criticism about the scepticism of the existence of mind independent objects?

DESCARTES evil demon: suppose there is an evil demon bent on deceiving me and so he messes with my sense data so nothing i perceive is actually real

if this were the case, nothing would reveal this to me as my sense data is all i can perceive and it is being controlled

if we can’t be certain that there is no one controlling our sense data, we can’t be certain that the external world is actually real

what are the counter arguments to scepticism about the existence of mind independent object?

LOCKE : involuntary nature of our experiences

LOCKE + COCKBURN: coherence of various senses

RUSSELL: external world is best hypothesis

what is the involuntary nature of our experiences counter argument? and its CA? and CCA?

LOCKE: sense experience can’t be controlled eg in my imagination, i can envision a rose on the table but in real life, i can’t just look at a table and expect a rose to just appear however much i want it to

since sense experiences force themselves onto us they ‘ must be produced in my mind by some exterior cause’ so mind independent objects must exist

CA: when we dream we can not control what is happening even though the dream is mind dependent. so just because we can’t control our perception of the world doesn’t mean the world is mind independent as we could be dreaming

CCA: LOCKE says if you thought you were dreaming and in a fire you could touch the fire and if doesn’t hurt it means you are dreaming but if it does, it means you are not dreaming

since we have an aversion to pain, Locke argues that we can know we are not dreaming since we would have no concept of pain if we didn’t so the dreaming counter argument fails

what is the coherence of various senses counter argument?

LOCKE: different senses confirm the information of one another

eg if i write the word ‘tree’ on a piece of paper and someone reads aloud ‘tree’, the same information has been confirmed by two different senses

this suggests the same mind-independent object causes both perceptions from the different senses

CA: BERKELEY: it is futile to find resemblances through senses

eg the taste of an apple can not represent what it looks like, we simply know that an apple will be in our hands (visualising its shape) if we taste an apple because we have commonly experienced this

CCA: COCKBURN agrees with Berkeley that senses can not resemble one another but she argues the correlation in change between different senses proves the external world exists. eg if an object gets dented then our sight of the object and the feel of the object will change, the bigger the dent, the bigger the change in our sight of the object and the bigger the change in our feel of the object. the fact there is a regularity in the interrelation of our senses proves an external world exists.

what is the external world as best hypothesis counter argument?

RUSSELL: there is no way to be certain the external world exists but this is the easiest hypothesis to accept and understand

imagine you see a cat on the sofa, go to the living room, return and see the cat is on the floor

there are 2 options : either the cat exists independently of the mind and walked to the floor or the cat’s existence is dependent on the mind so stopped existing when you left the room and came back to existence when you returned

Russell argues the first option is better as it allows the two perception to have a connection and a reason for why the cat changed position

this idea is supported by KANT who argues there is no point in even thinking about the real world (noumenal world) since our perceived world (phenomenal world) is the world we inhabit and can speak meaningfully of

what is the criticism about scepticism about the nature of mind independent objects?

BERKELEY: the likeness principle:

indirect realism says we perceive mind dependent sense data that represents mind independent objects (which we can’t perceive)

if an invisible thing can’t be like a colour or an inaudible thing can’t be like a sound then a sensible thing (what we can perceive) can’t be like an insensible thing (what we can’t perceive)

so indirect realism is wrong to say mind dependent sense data can be like the mind independent world

CA: if the world was totally different to the one we perceive, we would not have been able to survive this long

CCA: can’t be certain that the best way for species to survive is to have a direct sense of the world

define noumenal world

the real world

define phenomenal world

the world we perceive

define idealism

there is no external world independent of the mind, something only exists if it is perceived, Berkeley called anything we perceive ideas and we perceive ideas directly

what are the arguments for idealism?

BERKELEY: attack on primary and secondary qualities

BERKELEY: the master argument

what is Berkeley’s attack on primary and secondary qualities?

when we perceive an object, we don’t perceive anything other than its primary and secondary qualities

everything we perceive is a primary or secondary quality

secondary qualities are mind dependent on the grounds they appear different from different perspectives eg heat feels different depending on if you were already hot or cold

then primary qualities are also mind dependent on the grounds that they appear different from different perspectives (perceptual variation) eg table looks like rectangle from above but a kite from the side

so everything we perceive is mind dependent

what is Berkeley’s master argument? and its counter argument?

presents as a conversation between Philonous and Hylas

Philonous: try think of an object that exists independently of being perceived

Hylas: ok i am thinking of a tree that is not being perceived by anyone

Philonous: that is impossible, you are still perceiving the tree

so we can’t conceive of mind independent objects because as soon as we try conceive of them they become mind dependent

so the existence of mind independent objects is impossible

CA: just because we can’t think of a mind independent object doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, only proves you can’t have a mind independent thought

what are the issues with idealism?

illusion and hallucination

solipsism

problem with God

what is the issue with idealism based on illusions, dreams and hallucinations?

illusions, dreams and hallucinations all occur in our mind

if the whole world occurs in our mind, does this make illusions, dreams and hallucinations also real?

how do we distinguish them from what is real?

CA: BERKELEY claims that we can distinguish them based on our past and following experiences

eg if i know i have never teleported in the past because it is impossible, i know if i do teleport i am hallucinating or dreaming

if i see a pencil is bent in water but when i feel the pencil it is not bent, i know this was an illusion

what is the issue with idealism based on solipsism? and its counter argument?

if you can not conceive anything beyond your own mind, your own mind is the only mind which exists

so everyone you perceive is mind dependent and not real

CA: the universe is actually a permanent perception belonging to God

so what we perceive are copies of ideas that exist in God’s mind

so everyone is as real as you

what is Berkeley’s idea on the relation between God and the universe?

everything we perceive is mind dependent

there are three possible causes of these perceptions

the ideas

my own mind

another mind

can’t be ideas as they can not cause themselves

it can’t be my own mind as i would control what i see

so it must be another mind

this mind must be God as the perceptions are so complex, varied and ordered

so God permanently perceive the universe and what we perceive are copies of ideas that exist in God’s mind

what is the issue with idealism based on the problem with God?

if what we perceive are copies of God’s sensations and ideas then God must feel pain as we feel pain

but God does not feel pain as this would make him imperfect

so our sensations and ideas can not be copies of God’s ideas and sensations like idealism claims

CA: God is all powerful so he has the will to control what he perceives and what we perceive

CCA: proves he is not all loving to give us pain

define innatism

theory that you are born with knowledge

define empiricism

theory you gain knowledge through experience

define rationalism

theory we can acquire knowledge purely from intuition and deduction

define analytic truth

a statement which is true solely in virtue of its meaning eg triangle has 3 sides

if denied, they result in logical contradictions

define synthetic truth

a statement which is true because of how the world is eg grass is green

if denied, there is no logical contradiction

define a priori knowledge

knowledge acquired independent of experience, can be known with certainty before experience eg you know 2 apples + 3 pears = 5 fruits before you count them

define a posteriori knowledge

knowledge acquired by experience only, can’t be known with certainty before experience eg don’t know France beat England in football match before match happens

what are arguments for innatism?

PLATO: Meno’s slave

LEIBNIZ: necessary truths

what is Meno’s slave? and its counter argument?

Plato believes we are born with with innate knowledge, we just need to remember it so all learning is a form of recalling knowledge we already have

a slave owner and slave have completely different upbringings

the slave owner teaches the slave after the slave incorrectly guesses the answer how to find the length of a side of a square with an area of 8 by only asking the slave questions which he answers correctly

the slave had no previous teaching of geometry but was able to correctly answer the slave owner’s questions (or at least correct his mistakes)

so his knowledge must have been innate

CA: can argue the knowledge was empirical since the slave boy learnt the correct answer from his experience of being wrong

what is Leibniz’s necessary truths argument for innatism?

there are two types of truth: contingent truths (what is the case in this world but could be false in some other world) and necessary truths ( what must be the case and is true in every possible world)

a posteriori can’t prove necessary truths

eg if you add 2 apples to 2 apples, you can never guarantee it will add up to 4 apples next time solely from experience because there is always the possibility of ‘what if it does not?’

but we do know that 2+2 always makes 4

this knowledge does not come from experience and Leibniz argues it is innate knowledge

so existence of necessary truths prove innatism

what are empiricist criticisms that criticise innatism?

Locke’s attack on innatism

Locke’s Tabula Rasa

Hume simple and complex ideas

what is Locke’s attack on innatism?

innate knowledge would be universal if it existed

eg everyone would know the theorem of geometry which Meno’s slave suggests

but children and idiots do not possess such knowledge

so innatism does not exist

CA: children and idiots could possess this knowledge without being aware of it

CCA: Locke argues that the mind is transparent and it would be impossible to have ideas which we are not aware of

CA: Leibniz argues that it is possible to have ideas in your mind without having been conscious of them or having thought of them in his ‘New Essays’ which talks about the subconscious

what is Hume’s simple and complex ideas argument?

a simple concept is one concept that can’t be simplified to anything else eg brown or hard

a complex concept is made of simple concepts eg a chair is a complex concept made up of the simple concepts brown and hard etc

abstract concepts are then created from general complex concepts eg chairs can go from four legs and wooden to three legs and plastic

similarly we form abstract concepts like beauty, justice or God by abstracting from experience

so all our concepts and knowledge can be traced back to simple concepts which come from experience

what is the tabula rasa criticism on innatism?

is the theory that our mind is born as a blank slate and we gain knowledge from our experiences

Ockham’s razor states that when given two theories with equal explanatory power, the simpler theory should be chosen

Locke uses example of colour to show how tabula rasa is simpler theory than innatism

we are either born with an innate idea of each colour and then experience the colours or we simply experience colour and gain our idea of it from the experience

Locke argues that the first option gives no extra explanatory power and the second option is simpler because why would God bother with giving humans an innate idea of colour if they’ll just experience it anyways

what are criticisms of tabula rasa?

not all simple concepts are empirical

not all complex concepts are empirical

the mind is born with innate structures

what is the criticism to tabula rasa based on not all simple ideas are empirical?

Locke does say that it would be possible to imagine a shade of blue when given a range of blues with one missing shade

so not all simple ideas come from experience

CA: technically that shade of blue would be a complex concept of the two shades it is between so it does come from experience

CCA: by this logic, all shades of blue are a complex concept and so none are simple concepts that come from experience

what is the criticism to tabula rasa based on not all complex concepts are empirical?

you can’t put down complex concepts like justice down to sense impressions eg touch or taste or feel

CA: you form complex concepts like justice from experiencing simple concepts like unjust or just behaviours (Hume’s simple and complex ideas)

CCA: you can’t derive relational concepts from experience eg you can;t associate oneness or sameness with touch, sight or feel etc

what is the criticism to tabula rasa based on the mind is born with innate structures?

CONDILLAC’S statue is a thought experiment where you imagine a statue is carved first void of sensations and then given the ability to have sensations. could this statue come to know as much as humans do?

many argue no as the statue would receive uninterpreted information so it would not know how to process and use this information.

it is this ability to process and use information that is innate

so tabula rasa does not work as we are not a complete blank slate (like the statue) because we have an innate structure in us

this is supported by Kant who says “thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind” ( intuitions means our experiences so experiences without innate structures are meaningless)

define intuition

ability to know something is true just by thinking about it

define deduction

a method of deriving true propositions from other true propositions

what are the different beliefs between empiricists and rationalists?

empiricists believe only analytic truths can be a priori knowledge but rationalists believe both analytic and synthetic truths can be a priori knowledge

define rational intuition

an a priori faculty which enables us to see the truth

what are Descartes’ clear and distinct ideas?

ideas for which it is impossible for them to be false, any idea that presents itself clearly and distinctly to our rational intuition can be trusted as true

what are the three waves of doubt?

Descartes seeks to doubt all he knows when trying to prove synthetic truths can be a priori and this is classed in the three waves of doubt

illusion: i have been deceived by my senses before (pencil looked crooked in water) so i can not trust my senses

dreaming: i could think i am awake but i am actually dreaming so everything that happens could be false

deception: i must doubt basic ideas like 1+1=2 because an evil demon could be controlling my perception and sense of truth

how does Descartes prove rationalism?

in his ‘Meditations’ he provides arguments for 3 synthetic truths using a priori means and clear and distinct ideas. they are:

I exist - cogito ergo sum

God exists - trademark argument

the world exists

what is cogito ergo sum?

i doubt (seen by the three waves of doubt )

therefore i think

therefore i am

even if a demon, illusions or dreams are deceiving him, there must be something that exists for them to deceive which is I

what is the trademark argument?

i have the concept of God

my concept of god is infinite and perfect

but i am a finite and imperfect being

the cause of an effect must have at least as much reality as the effect

so the cause of my concept of God must have at least as much reality as what the concept is about

so the cause of my concept of God must be infinite and perfect

so God exists

what is the argument that the world exists?

i have perceptions of an external world with physical objects

my perceptions can’t be caused by my own mind because they are involuntary

so the cause of my perceptions must be external to my mind

god exists (trademark)

if the cause of perception is God and not physical objects themselves then God has created me with a tendency to form false beliefs from my perception

But God is a perfect being by definition and so would not create me with a tendency to form false beliefs

so i can trust my perceptions

so given i can trust my perceptions and i have perceptions of an external world with physical objects. the external world of physical objects exists

what are criticisms of the trademark argument and the argument the world exists?

HUME: concept of God is not innate

Hume’s Fork

is causal principle true?

dreams (just world argument)

God can be a deceiver (just world argument)