PHIL 347 FINAL EXAM | 81 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Omnipotence - -- God can do anything that is intrinsically (non-contradictory) possible for
God to do
-Omniscience - -- God knows the future
- God is immutable, so foreknowledge is nonexistent
> *obj*: God would "change his mind" depending on what an agent chooses to do
-The Kalam Cosmological Argument - -(1) everything that begins to exist has a *cause*
(2) the universe began to exist
> the number of past events is continuously augmented, so not infinite, so there is a
*beginning*
(3) so, the universe has a cause that is *distinct from itself*
-Why is the cause from the cosmological personal? - -(4) a cause is either *mechanical* or
*personal*
(5) mechanical entails order and laws of nature, which did NOT exist *before* the universe
(6) the universe then must have a *distinct, personal* cause
(7) so, the universe has a cause that is *distinct from itself*
-W.L. Craig on the Kalam Argument - -- the Big Bang model predicts the absolute
beginning of the universe, which gives evidence for this argument
> further support f. Second Law of Thermodynamics
-"Possibility" objections to Kalam - -- *obj 1*: anything conceivable is possible, x starting
to exist w/o a cause included
- *obj 2*: anything that is non-contradictory is possible, x starting to exist w/o a cause
included
-Counter-objection to Kalam "possibility" objection - -- it is NOT evident that
conceivability or consistency imply possibility
-Quantum objection to Kalam - -- subatomic particles have been observed to appear w/o
observed causes in vacuums
> things can begin to exist w/o a cause
-Quantum objection counter - -- an absence of an observed cause is NOT the same as
absence of a *real cause*
-Kraal's objections to Kalam - -- "everything that begins to exist must has a cause distinct f.
itself" does NOT mean a creator, instead:
> multiple, simultaneous causes
> a cause distinct f. *our universe*
> a cause not of "omni-nature"
, -The "First Cause" Cosmological Argument - -(1) there are *effects* in the world
(2) every effect has a *preexisting, distinct* cause
(3) these causes and effects may form a *series*
(4) this series must *terminate* w/ an ultimate cause
(5) this ultimate cause is God, aka the *first* cause
-Assumption with the First Cause Argument - -- there is always a *complete explanation,*
meaning that x can be explained to the extent it provides a terminating cause, for a given
effect (PSR)
-The "Sufficient Reason" Cosmological Argument - -(1) there are *contingent* SoAs
(2) every *contingent* SoA depends on a prior SoAs
(3) these may form a *series* together
(4) this series must terminate w/ a *necessary* SoAs as it requires to a complete answer to
"why"
(5) there is *something* necessary -- GOD!
-Objections to the PSR assumption - -(1) the universe is just there (Russell)
(2) a brute fact that is contingent can be simply conceived of (Hume)
(3) implies that *every* contingency needs an explanation, which makes ALL facts
necessary (paradox)
-Aquinas's Third Argument (Cosmological) - -(1) there are contingent things
(2) every contingent thing at one time did NOT exist
(3) so, if all beings were contingent, then at one point there was *nothing*
(4) but, there is *something*
(5) so, NOT everything is a contingent being
(6) there is at least something *necessary*
(7) there is someone necessary, w/ at least *one* of the *divine attributes*
-Objections to Aquinas's Third Way - -(1) NOT evident that there could be NO eternally
existing contingencies
(2) possibility of infinite contingencies
(3) divinity does not entail necessity (e.g. math, we don't worship "25")
-The Teleological Argument - -(1) there are intricate, functional structures that are often
biological
(2) function means *intention*
(3) intention means *intender*
(4) intender means an *intelligent mind*
(5) God is this intelligent mind
-The Darwinian Objection - -- the relevant purposeful structures came about because of
natural variation and natural selection, that are random
- randomness entails mindlessness
Omnipotence - -- God can do anything that is intrinsically (non-contradictory) possible for
God to do
-Omniscience - -- God knows the future
- God is immutable, so foreknowledge is nonexistent
> *obj*: God would "change his mind" depending on what an agent chooses to do
-The Kalam Cosmological Argument - -(1) everything that begins to exist has a *cause*
(2) the universe began to exist
> the number of past events is continuously augmented, so not infinite, so there is a
*beginning*
(3) so, the universe has a cause that is *distinct from itself*
-Why is the cause from the cosmological personal? - -(4) a cause is either *mechanical* or
*personal*
(5) mechanical entails order and laws of nature, which did NOT exist *before* the universe
(6) the universe then must have a *distinct, personal* cause
(7) so, the universe has a cause that is *distinct from itself*
-W.L. Craig on the Kalam Argument - -- the Big Bang model predicts the absolute
beginning of the universe, which gives evidence for this argument
> further support f. Second Law of Thermodynamics
-"Possibility" objections to Kalam - -- *obj 1*: anything conceivable is possible, x starting
to exist w/o a cause included
- *obj 2*: anything that is non-contradictory is possible, x starting to exist w/o a cause
included
-Counter-objection to Kalam "possibility" objection - -- it is NOT evident that
conceivability or consistency imply possibility
-Quantum objection to Kalam - -- subatomic particles have been observed to appear w/o
observed causes in vacuums
> things can begin to exist w/o a cause
-Quantum objection counter - -- an absence of an observed cause is NOT the same as
absence of a *real cause*
-Kraal's objections to Kalam - -- "everything that begins to exist must has a cause distinct f.
itself" does NOT mean a creator, instead:
> multiple, simultaneous causes
> a cause distinct f. *our universe*
> a cause not of "omni-nature"
, -The "First Cause" Cosmological Argument - -(1) there are *effects* in the world
(2) every effect has a *preexisting, distinct* cause
(3) these causes and effects may form a *series*
(4) this series must *terminate* w/ an ultimate cause
(5) this ultimate cause is God, aka the *first* cause
-Assumption with the First Cause Argument - -- there is always a *complete explanation,*
meaning that x can be explained to the extent it provides a terminating cause, for a given
effect (PSR)
-The "Sufficient Reason" Cosmological Argument - -(1) there are *contingent* SoAs
(2) every *contingent* SoA depends on a prior SoAs
(3) these may form a *series* together
(4) this series must terminate w/ a *necessary* SoAs as it requires to a complete answer to
"why"
(5) there is *something* necessary -- GOD!
-Objections to the PSR assumption - -(1) the universe is just there (Russell)
(2) a brute fact that is contingent can be simply conceived of (Hume)
(3) implies that *every* contingency needs an explanation, which makes ALL facts
necessary (paradox)
-Aquinas's Third Argument (Cosmological) - -(1) there are contingent things
(2) every contingent thing at one time did NOT exist
(3) so, if all beings were contingent, then at one point there was *nothing*
(4) but, there is *something*
(5) so, NOT everything is a contingent being
(6) there is at least something *necessary*
(7) there is someone necessary, w/ at least *one* of the *divine attributes*
-Objections to Aquinas's Third Way - -(1) NOT evident that there could be NO eternally
existing contingencies
(2) possibility of infinite contingencies
(3) divinity does not entail necessity (e.g. math, we don't worship "25")
-The Teleological Argument - -(1) there are intricate, functional structures that are often
biological
(2) function means *intention*
(3) intention means *intender*
(4) intender means an *intelligent mind*
(5) God is this intelligent mind
-The Darwinian Objection - -- the relevant purposeful structures came about because of
natural variation and natural selection, that are random
- randomness entails mindlessness
