PHIL 347 Exam 1|Questions and Answers
(Cosmological and design arguments)
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
(Cosmological and design arguments)
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
