PHIL 347 Exam 1 Questions With 100%
Verified Answers Graded A+
What is the basic structure of the cosmological (kalam, craig, plato-philoponus) argument
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
therefore the universe has a cause
what is the first a priori argument regarding premise 2 of the Kalam
The universe has to have a cause as it cannot be infinite because that implies there there is an actual
infinity of real events
Why can there not be actual infinites of real events?
Because that would lead us to deny Euclid's axiom that the whole is always larger than its parts
what is the second a priori argument regarding premise 2 of the Kalam
Even if we allow for infinities of real events, the universe cannot be eternal or infinite, as that would
mean that it would've had to have traversed all through a past infinity of events, which is a set of
infinite steps
What are a posteriori arguments for premise 2 of the Kalam
Big bang cosmology, big bang singularity, empirically observed background radiation,
thermodynamics - if universe is eternal then we would have run out of energy
Russells objections to second premise of the Kalam
Set theory has shown that there can be actual infinities of real objects, therefore this undermines a
priori argument that the universe needs a start date. This is based on the assumption that numbers
are real objects and that consistency implies possibility
Arguments regarding premise 1 of the kalam - Hume's objection the the causal principle
Hume rejects intuitive knowledge, and believes everything has to be proven with experience. Just
because some things have a cause does not mean that all things do
Arguments regarding premise 1 of the kalam - Krauss objection the the causal principle
Quantum vacuum, Quantum fluctuation proves that something comes from nothing
Counter to Krauss' objection
Quantum vacuum is not nothing and therefore this does not answer the q if something comes from
nothing
Russell - first cause argument
If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause, why is God exempt from this logic?
Mistake in Rusells first cause argument
everything that begins to exist has a cause, not that everything has a cause
Verified Answers Graded A+
What is the basic structure of the cosmological (kalam, craig, plato-philoponus) argument
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
therefore the universe has a cause
what is the first a priori argument regarding premise 2 of the Kalam
The universe has to have a cause as it cannot be infinite because that implies there there is an actual
infinity of real events
Why can there not be actual infinites of real events?
Because that would lead us to deny Euclid's axiom that the whole is always larger than its parts
what is the second a priori argument regarding premise 2 of the Kalam
Even if we allow for infinities of real events, the universe cannot be eternal or infinite, as that would
mean that it would've had to have traversed all through a past infinity of events, which is a set of
infinite steps
What are a posteriori arguments for premise 2 of the Kalam
Big bang cosmology, big bang singularity, empirically observed background radiation,
thermodynamics - if universe is eternal then we would have run out of energy
Russells objections to second premise of the Kalam
Set theory has shown that there can be actual infinities of real objects, therefore this undermines a
priori argument that the universe needs a start date. This is based on the assumption that numbers
are real objects and that consistency implies possibility
Arguments regarding premise 1 of the kalam - Hume's objection the the causal principle
Hume rejects intuitive knowledge, and believes everything has to be proven with experience. Just
because some things have a cause does not mean that all things do
Arguments regarding premise 1 of the kalam - Krauss objection the the causal principle
Quantum vacuum, Quantum fluctuation proves that something comes from nothing
Counter to Krauss' objection
Quantum vacuum is not nothing and therefore this does not answer the q if something comes from
nothing
Russell - first cause argument
If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause, why is God exempt from this logic?
Mistake in Rusells first cause argument
everything that begins to exist has a cause, not that everything has a cause
