Exam2-PHI
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Arizona State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by BailiffFogSquid33
Cla
ssi
fica
tio
n: Sch
wa
b Int
ern
al
Name: Ambrelle Scally
PHI 1011 Exam 2 FA 23
For each question that you choose to answer, as part of your answer you must indicate
where in the course materials (lecture notes, a specific reading) you found the answer to the question. For citations, you only need to include the page number of the work where you found the relevant passage in parentheses. For example, (Anselm, pg. 2). Failing to indicate the various places where you found the answer will result in a reduction of points.
Section I: Answer
three
of the following four questions; do not answer all four (9 points).
1.
Name an author have we read who is
not
attempting to prove the existence of god? Explain your answer.
Source: Week 7 Content: Evil and Omnipotence by J.L. Mackie
An author who is not attempting to prove the existence of god is Mackie. Mackie is not trying to prove the existence of god, but rather deny the existence
of god. In his article, “Evil and Omnipotence” he gives reason for his disbelief by saying that there is evidence that god does not exist. Mackie believes that god cannot be god because there is evil in the world and the theist is trying to argue that god is all good and all powerful, but Mackie states that there would be no evil in the world if god could control everything to be good. 2.
Explain what it means to know something a posteriori. Give an example of an author’s argument we have read in this unit that makes use of a posteriori knowledge and explain why you chose this argument.
Cla
ssi
fica
tio
n: Sch
wa
b Int
ern
al
Sources: Week 6 Content: God and a Priori vs. a Posteriori: Types of Knowledge AND The Five Ways by St. Thomas Aquinas
Posteriori is knowledge that is based on experience, which means to know something is a posteriori, it means it was based on an experience. Aquinas argues in posteriori knowledge, especially when focusing on his fifth way of proof that god exists. His fifth point is “Governance of Things” in which he explains that all life forms have purpose and he says that being designed for a purpose means that they are designed to achieve a certain goal. Since living things can’t act by themselves, they need a higher power to guide them. I chose
Aquinas because he says that god must exist based on the definition of god. 3.
Explain the problem of evil for the theist.
Source: Week 7 Content: J.L. Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence
The problem of evil is that the theists say that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent which means that if god is all knowing, all powerful, and all good, then evil should not exist because god should be able to control it. Since there is evil in the world, then that is the proof that god does not exist. Mackie’s explains the set of propositions to be 1. God is all good, 2. God is all powerful, and 3. Evil exists. Mackie believes that these are inconsistent propositions because if two of them are true, then the third has to be false.
Cla
ssi
fica
tio
n: Sch
wa
b Int
ern
al
Section II: Answer
three
of the following four questions; do not answer all four (12 points).
2.
Explain the difference between necessary and contingent existence. Do you exist necessarily or contingently? Explain your answer.
Source: Week 6 Content: The Five Ways by St. Thomas Aquinas (page 381-382 specifically)
Necessary existence is something that must exist. It is independent and does not rely on anything else for its existence. Contingent existence is something that exists but could not have existed. It is dependent on other factors for its existence. I believe that
I exist contingently because my parents could have decided to not have children and then I would not exist. Another reason is because I rely on food, water, and shelter to exist because without those things, I would cease to exist. 3.
Explain two definitions of ‘holy’ offered by Euthyphro and explain how Socrates refutes them. Quote and cite the text as part of your answer.
Source: Week 8 Content: Plato’s Euthyphro
Euthyphro presents 3 definitions of holy, but I will give the first two. 1. Prosecuting anyone who is guilty of murder. “But Socrates, surely none of the gods disagree about this, that he who kills another man unjustly should answer for it” (Euthyphro, pg.8). Socrates rejects this because it is an example of a pious (religious) act, not a definition that identifies the nature of piety. 2. The holy is what is loved by all the gods. “But I would certainly say that the holy is what all the gods love, and that he opposite, what all the gods hate is unholy” (Euthyphro, pg.10). Socrates rejects this by using the Euthyphro dilemma which asks “Do gods love the holy because it is holy, or is it holy because the gods love it”.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Cla
ssi
fica
tio
n: Sch
wa
b Int
ern
al
4.
Define the terms theism, agnosticism, and atheism. Name an author who argues
for theism that we have studied. Name an author who has argued for atheism that we have studied; reference the text in support of your author identifications.
Source: Week 8: The Kurtz/Craig Debate: Is Goodness without God Good Enough? by Paul Kurtz and William Lane Craig
Theism is the belief in god, where atheism is the disbelief in god, and agnosticism is neither the belief in god, or the disbelief in god. An example of a
theist that we have read in this unit is William Craig and an atheist, who is Paul
Kurtz. The debate that Kurtz and Craig are going through is “without god there is no basis for morality”. Craig is defending Divine Command Theory which is the belief that what is moral and what is immoral is commanded by the divine. Craig also states that god needs to exist for things to actually be good or bad. “God’s own holy and loving nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions are measured… Thus, if God exists, objective moral values exist.” (Craig, pg. 30). Kurtz, the atheist responds to Craig by saying that humans have an empty morality. Kurtz explains this by saying that if you are only being good to please god then you don’t actually care about morality. “Humans do abhor degradation, injustice, and inhumanity, whether or not God exists.” (Kurtz, pg.35) Section III: Answer
two
of the following three questions; do not answer all three (10 points).
1.
Here is the argument from evil, in detail:
1.
Suppose that the OOO-God exists.
2.
If the OOO-God exists, then this world was created by the OOO-God.
3.
If this world was created by the OOO-Being, then this is the best of all possible
worlds.
4.
So this is the best of all possible worlds.
5.
The best possible world does not contain evil.
Cla
ssi
fica
tio
n: Sch
wa
b Int
ern
al
6.
This world does in fact contain evil.
7.
So this is not the best possible world.
8.
So the OOO-God does not exist.
The following questions reference the above argument.
a.
Explain the definition of the OOO-God.
Source: Week 7: Evil and Omnipotence by J.L. Mackie
An OOO god means that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, hence the triple O’s. Omnipotent means that god is all knowing, meaning he knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen. Omniscient
means that god is all powerful, which means that god can do anything he wants to do to anything and anyone at any given moment in time. Omnibenevolent means that god is all good, which means that god does no wrong, he only does all good. b.
Explain why this world should contain no evil.
If God is all powerful and all good, then he has the power to erase evil in the world, but since evil still exists, god does not. c.
State one objection to this argument that Mackie considers, pointing out which premise in the argument the objection is challenging. Cite where you found the objection you are using the in the Mackie article.
Number 4- If this is the best world, there should be no evil. The theist may reject this point for a lot of reasons, but one is by saying that god created evil to
balance the good in the world. (Mackie, pg. 203)
d.
State one of Mackie’s replies to the objection.
Mackie then rebuts this by saying if god can’t create good without evil, then god is not omnipotent. “First, it sets a limit to what God can do, saying that God cannot create good without simultaneously creating evil, and this either means that God is not omnipotent or that there are some limits to what an omnipotent thing can do.” (Mackie, pg. 203)
Cla
ssi
fica
tio
n: Sch
wa
b Int
ern
al
2.
Explain Anselm’s argument for the existence of God. Explain Guanilo’s counterargument to Anselm’s argument of the existence of God. Explain what Guanilo’s argument is meant to show about Anselm’s argument. Be sure to indicate where you found the answer to this question.
Source: Week 6 Content: Anselm- The Ontological Argument
Anselm’s argument for the existence of god is that god is the greatest entity which can be imagined, existing in reality is better than existing in a persons mind, so as a result, god exists in the real world. His conclusion to this argument is simply, god
exists. Guanilo rejects this by saying it is difficult to prove that an entity exists just by the concept of it. Guanilo’s argument is meant to show that Anselm’s argument lacks evidence and deep thinking. He compares his argument to an island that someone says
just exists and that he should believe that the island exists, just because he said it does.
“For he ought to show first that the hypothetical excellence of this island exists as a real and indubitable fact, and in no wise as any unreal object, or one whose existence is uncertain, in my understanding.” (Guanilo, pg.4)
Section IV: Answer
two
of the following three questions; do not answer all three (10 points).
1.
Explain Pascal’s wager and what it is supposed to prove; make use of the text as part of your answer. What kind of reasons (epistemic or practical) is Pascal giving for belief in God? Explain your answer. State one criticism of the wager.
Source: Week 7 Content: Pascal’s Wager
Pascal’s wager is that if you believe in God and he exists, then you gain eternal rewards, but if it turns out he does not exist then you will lose nothing. On the other side of things, if you don’t believe in god and he exists then you will be eternally punished and if he does not exist, you will not gain nor lose anything. He is trying to prove that it is more beneficial to humans to believe in god because there are more rewards if he does exist. “Let us estimate these two probabilities; if you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He does exist.” (Pascal, pg.2). Pascal gives practical reasons for the belief in god because it is not whether god exists or not, but rather what someone can gain or lose if they don’t believe in god. One criticism of the wager is that there are so many religions on the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Cla
ssi
fica
tio
n: Sch
wa
b Int
ern
al
planet that believe in a god, but Pascal seems to only be mentioning the Christian god and the Christian afterlife, so this disproves/denies his argument. 3.
Explain Divine Command Theory. Explain how the “Euthyphro Problem/Objection” poses a problem for Divine Command theory. Explain one way in which Craig aims to reject the Euthyphro Problem; cite the text in support of your answer.
Source: Week 8 Content: The Most Gruesome of Guests by William Lane Craig The Divine Command Theory is the belief that what is moral and what is immoral is commanded by the divine. The Euthyphro Problem is “are right actions right because god commands them or are right actions commanded by god because they are right?”, so this poses a problem because how do we know if something is morally right or wrong? Craig proposes a new and improved Divine Command Theory, since the Euthyphro objection rejects it originally. Craig states that god’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and the commandments are expressions of his nature. “Moreover, since according to classical theism, God exists necessarily, his nature can serve to ground necessary moral truths”. (Craig, pg.170). “More importantly, perhaps, God’s character is the fount of his moral commands to us, which form our moral duties.” (Craig, pg.171).