Arts and Humanities Philosophy Theology
Philosophy-Exam 1- Questions
Save
Students also studied
Adams Philosophy Exam philosophy exam 1 Philoso
9 terms 78 terms 9 terms 18 terms
tragiclichkings4 Preview jmuna Preview Mary_Mead Preview tay
Anselm believes God to be "something than which Anselm means that God is the greatest entity that exists. Our mind cannot
nothing greater can be conceived." What do you think he conceive of anything greater than God. God is typically thought of as a supreme,
means by this phrase? Is this how God is typically thought all-knowing, and all-powerful being.
of?
What does it mean to say that something exists in the Something that exists in understanding is a thought or idea that is in the human
understanding? mind but may not exist in the physical reality. Vampires and werewolves only exist
in our imagination and we understand their characteristics and what they are but
they do not actually exist in our physical world. They only exist in our
understanding.
Why would existence in reality be greater than existence If something was the greatest thing that can be conceived but it does not exist,
in the understanding? Can you think of anything that this would be a flaw and it is therefore not the greatest thing that exists.
would be greater if it existed in the understanding than if Something that is absolutely perfect and without flaws cannot only be an idea,
it existed in reality? but must actually exist in the physical world as well.
What is Anselm's distinction between two different ways Two different ways to conceive
of conceiving in chapter IV? Can we really conceive of 1. One simply has words for the thought and in that thought a representation of
something than which nothing greater can be conceived what actually exists.
in the way Anselm thinks we can? 2. understands the thought and thus has a deeper meaning rather than just a
representation.
Anselm thinks that individuals can conceive of something greater than anything
else and he stands correct. When individuals believe in God they believe in a deity
that has more power than anything else in existence, and in turn something that
stands greater than anything else.
, Do you think Paley is right that even if we had never seen Paley says that since the watch is such a complex thing you would assume that it
a watch being made or had never known anyone capable was created.
of making one, we would still conclude that the watch
was created by some kind of agency? Why or why not? The fact that the object, or watch in this case, had multiple parts that make up the
whole would produce an idea of creation. Having something more complex put
together would probably cause a person to believe that it was made versus
naturally being that way.
What sorts of natural phenomena might plausibly be A natural phenomenon that might seem designed are the individual parts of a
supposed to show the evidence of having been creature or even the creature itself. Any part of a creature that has a function
designed? How much weight should we give to these could show evidence of having been designed for that purpose. However we
appearances of design? should not put a lot of stock into this appearance as maybe the body part came
first and the animal just found a purpose that it would work for. The idea would
stand as the design coming before the function, which would mean that no plan
or thought was put into the design.
How does the theory of evolution affect the efficacy of The theory of evolution states that an organism changes over time as a result of
Paley's argument for the existence of God, if at all? heritable physical or behavioral traits. Paley's argument would be affected by the
theory of evolution because evolution would prove that an organism changes
over time. If God made an organism as it is, how could evolution constantly
change it. (Opposing argument follows): Since a watch is intricate and we must
conclude it has been made by a maker
Pascal tells us that we must wager and then asks us which Yes, Even though Pascal gives little argument as to wagering against the existence
we will choose. Is it really a matter of choice which way of God, it remains a choice as to which way an individual will wager. However it is
we wager? safe to assume that the choice in the wager is swayed by other factors and that
the decision is not perfectly independent.
If we wager that God exists, Pascal says that if we lose, Someone who truly wagers for the existence of God lives a life following the
we lose nothing. Is this true? Does believing in God, if commandments and being a devout and pious individual, which does cost
God doesn't exist, carry no costs? something.
Ex. abstinence until marriage, in some religions removal of toxins from life, such as
alcohol and caffeine, or even a removal of using God's name in vain.
If you do all these things in the belief of God, when in fact the being does not
exist, then the cost would be considered monitoring your lifestyle for no reward.
If I accept God because I think it's a safe bet, do I really If someone only accepts the existence of God because it remains a safe bet then
thereby become a theist? Or is there something else I they are not truly a theist. They must not only accept the deity because of a bet,
need to do, even after I wager? but because of a belief and faith, and after the wager they must change their
lifestyle to live the life that they bet on. To actually become a theist one must
make the bet for God's existence and live by the life that their religion has set
forth.
Cleanthes offers an argument for the existence of God by The world is a finely tuned machine, all machines we know are created by
way of an analogy with a machine made by humans. How intelligence
does this argument go? Why isn't Philo convinced by it? So world must be created by intelligence too
Philo argues this analogy because he says that it is weak in general and also the
universe and machine cannot be compared
This is because a machine is part of the universe
Philosophy-Exam 1- Questions
Save
Students also studied
Adams Philosophy Exam philosophy exam 1 Philoso
9 terms 78 terms 9 terms 18 terms
tragiclichkings4 Preview jmuna Preview Mary_Mead Preview tay
Anselm believes God to be "something than which Anselm means that God is the greatest entity that exists. Our mind cannot
nothing greater can be conceived." What do you think he conceive of anything greater than God. God is typically thought of as a supreme,
means by this phrase? Is this how God is typically thought all-knowing, and all-powerful being.
of?
What does it mean to say that something exists in the Something that exists in understanding is a thought or idea that is in the human
understanding? mind but may not exist in the physical reality. Vampires and werewolves only exist
in our imagination and we understand their characteristics and what they are but
they do not actually exist in our physical world. They only exist in our
understanding.
Why would existence in reality be greater than existence If something was the greatest thing that can be conceived but it does not exist,
in the understanding? Can you think of anything that this would be a flaw and it is therefore not the greatest thing that exists.
would be greater if it existed in the understanding than if Something that is absolutely perfect and without flaws cannot only be an idea,
it existed in reality? but must actually exist in the physical world as well.
What is Anselm's distinction between two different ways Two different ways to conceive
of conceiving in chapter IV? Can we really conceive of 1. One simply has words for the thought and in that thought a representation of
something than which nothing greater can be conceived what actually exists.
in the way Anselm thinks we can? 2. understands the thought and thus has a deeper meaning rather than just a
representation.
Anselm thinks that individuals can conceive of something greater than anything
else and he stands correct. When individuals believe in God they believe in a deity
that has more power than anything else in existence, and in turn something that
stands greater than anything else.
, Do you think Paley is right that even if we had never seen Paley says that since the watch is such a complex thing you would assume that it
a watch being made or had never known anyone capable was created.
of making one, we would still conclude that the watch
was created by some kind of agency? Why or why not? The fact that the object, or watch in this case, had multiple parts that make up the
whole would produce an idea of creation. Having something more complex put
together would probably cause a person to believe that it was made versus
naturally being that way.
What sorts of natural phenomena might plausibly be A natural phenomenon that might seem designed are the individual parts of a
supposed to show the evidence of having been creature or even the creature itself. Any part of a creature that has a function
designed? How much weight should we give to these could show evidence of having been designed for that purpose. However we
appearances of design? should not put a lot of stock into this appearance as maybe the body part came
first and the animal just found a purpose that it would work for. The idea would
stand as the design coming before the function, which would mean that no plan
or thought was put into the design.
How does the theory of evolution affect the efficacy of The theory of evolution states that an organism changes over time as a result of
Paley's argument for the existence of God, if at all? heritable physical or behavioral traits. Paley's argument would be affected by the
theory of evolution because evolution would prove that an organism changes
over time. If God made an organism as it is, how could evolution constantly
change it. (Opposing argument follows): Since a watch is intricate and we must
conclude it has been made by a maker
Pascal tells us that we must wager and then asks us which Yes, Even though Pascal gives little argument as to wagering against the existence
we will choose. Is it really a matter of choice which way of God, it remains a choice as to which way an individual will wager. However it is
we wager? safe to assume that the choice in the wager is swayed by other factors and that
the decision is not perfectly independent.
If we wager that God exists, Pascal says that if we lose, Someone who truly wagers for the existence of God lives a life following the
we lose nothing. Is this true? Does believing in God, if commandments and being a devout and pious individual, which does cost
God doesn't exist, carry no costs? something.
Ex. abstinence until marriage, in some religions removal of toxins from life, such as
alcohol and caffeine, or even a removal of using God's name in vain.
If you do all these things in the belief of God, when in fact the being does not
exist, then the cost would be considered monitoring your lifestyle for no reward.
If I accept God because I think it's a safe bet, do I really If someone only accepts the existence of God because it remains a safe bet then
thereby become a theist? Or is there something else I they are not truly a theist. They must not only accept the deity because of a bet,
need to do, even after I wager? but because of a belief and faith, and after the wager they must change their
lifestyle to live the life that they bet on. To actually become a theist one must
make the bet for God's existence and live by the life that their religion has set
forth.
Cleanthes offers an argument for the existence of God by The world is a finely tuned machine, all machines we know are created by
way of an analogy with a machine made by humans. How intelligence
does this argument go? Why isn't Philo convinced by it? So world must be created by intelligence too
Philo argues this analogy because he says that it is weak in general and also the
universe and machine cannot be compared
This is because a machine is part of the universe
