CT Exam 3

Card Set Information

Author:
mandamari3
ID:
183575
Filename:
CT Exam 3
Updated:
2012-11-14 20:23:05
Tags:
CriticalThinking3 CT3
Folders:

Description:
Exam 3
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user mandamari3 on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
    • P1. The universe exists.
    • Self-evident
    •  P2. Either it has a beginning or it does not have a beginning.
    •  Follows from logic alone
    • P3. It is not possible that the universe is eternal (i.e., have no beginning).
    •  Supported by argument against the possibility of actual infinities
    • C1. Therefore, the universe has a beginning.
    •  Follows from P1, P2, 
    • P4. If the universe has a beginning, the existence of the universe has a cause.
    • “Ex nihilo nihil fit.” Apparently plausible claim about causation
    •  P5. If the existence of the universe has a cause, the cause of the universe is immaterial, timeless, and changeless.
    • Follows from the cause preceding spatiotemporal reality
    • C2. Therefore, the cause of the universe is immaterial,timeless, andchangeless.
    •  Follows from C1, P4, P5 (Modus Ponens)
    • P6. If something that created the universe is immaterial, timeless, and changeless, then that thing is God.
    •  (This was the conclusion of the sub-argument considered earlier.)
    • C3. Therefore, God exists.
  2. OBJECTION to COSMOLOGICAL ARG.
    • Suppose God exists. If God exists, God either has a cause or
    • exists uncaused. If it is not possible that something exists uncaused, then God also has cause. Call this God-2. But, then God-2 also has a cause, God-3. This leads to an infinite regress of infinitely many beings, each creating a God-like being.
    • The defender of the Cosmological Argument has to allow that God be self-caused but this undermines the premise that it is not possible that something exist uncaused.
  3. Pascal's Wager
    Reason why we SHOULD BELIEVE God exist
    • Using expected utility theory, any action that leads to infinite utility is always *the rational course action*, since any probability multiplied by infinity delivers infinite expected utility, where expected utility is determined by multiplying utility.
    • P1. If believing in God has a higher expected utility than
    • disbelieving in God, you ought to believe in God.
    • according to utility theory
    • P2. Believing in God has a higher expected utility than disbelieving in God.
    • Results in pleasure in both cases of whether god exist or doesnt exist
    •  C1. Therefore, you ought to believe in God.
    • Based on P1 & P2
  4. Objections to Pascals Wager
    • Why would God reward someone who is faithful on the basis of its potential benefits?
    • Could an argument like this actually cause someone to
    • believe in God if they didn’t believe beforehand?
    •  How could one successfully be faithful to the “correct” God,
    • given that there are many “possible God” one might strive to
    • be faithful to?
  5. Moral Arguments for Existence of God
    • aim to show that the objectivity of morality is best explained by the existence of good
    • however if morality is obj. than moral claims (truths or false) is independent of our attitudes toward these claims
    • many people believe that morality is not obj but believe in moral relativism.
  6. Moral relativism
    • an action is right or wrong to the extent that it conforms or diverges from the moral code of the culture that performs it
    • ie. -cannabalism in cannabilistic cultures
  7. problems w/ moral relativism
    • moral progress: abolishing slavery is a good thing but at the time that slavery existed it was seen as good
    • moral critics: MlK spaking out againt Jim Crow was TRUE, but if people belived that the laws at that time was good then MLK was wrong. -> every moral critic who critisizes moral code was is mistaken, which seems implausible.
  8. standard form moral arg
    • p1 Therre are obj. moral values
    • p2 If God does exist, then obj. moral values do not exist
    • C1. Therefore God exist
  9. Problem of evil
    • P1. If God exists, God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
    • Abandoning this premise would require compromising either the moral excellence or the power of God which are non -negotiable among theism.
    • P2. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then it is not the case that there is unnecessary or undeserved suffering or evil in the world.
    • (More strongly, it would always do the best thing.) If something is both all-powerful and all-good, then it should never be the case that anything bad happens.
    •  P3. There is unnecessary or undeserved suffering or evil in the world.
    • Children die of illness. & Innocent people are victims of violence.

     C1. Therefore, it is not the case that God exists
  10. Objection to Power of Evil
    • Greater Good Response in light of Freedom
    • There must be freedom, if there is to be moral goodness. And the price of giving humans freedom is that sometimes they will misuse it which result in evil
    • -natural evil
  11. adequacy VOE
    • aims to explain,accounts for all phenoma.
    • IE. if a friend did not show up to meet you for dinner and didnt answer your call the best explanation would cover all aspects.
  12. Modesty VOE
    • Powerful explanations are good, but explanations
    • shouldn't be too powerful
    • ie. you discover that your best physical theory has an unbalanced equation. You posit an “X particle.” You do the
    • same in chemistry, biology, and everywhere else, 
    • these are not genuine theories they do not improve our explanatory account of the world.
  13. Power VOE
    • A good explanation should not only explain the phenomena in question, but also suggest explanations for a wide range of other phenomena
    • they have implications for a variety of theories
    • (e.g.,Newton’s laws of motions provide a powerful explanation of planetary orbits as well as the motions of particles)
  14. DEPTH VOE
    • The best explanation will improve our understanding & answer more questions than it raises.
    •  ie friend didn’t meet you by
    • claiming that your friend went to rob a bank, leads to more questions
  15. SIMPLICITY VOE
    • Given two otherwise equal explanations, the better explanation is the one that posits the fewest kinds of,
    • laws, or modifications.

    • i.e. Your friend not meeting you because they forgot vs. they forgot and they're in Chicago
    • Easier to accept doesn't require much modifying or effort
  16. Conservativeness VOE
    Explanations that require us to abandon previously well-established beliefs are worse than otherwise equally good explanations that are compatible with our previous beliefs.

    • IE: if your explanation requires you to attribute to your friend forgetting when they are among the most well organized people you know, this explanation is not likely to
    • be a good one.
  17. Statisical Generalizations can be flawed..
    • Sample size
    • Representative Bias: random samples represent the chateristics of the entire population
    • Biased Sample: not representaive of the intended population (research methods)
    • Biased results:letting bias creep in other ways (e.g., the
    • phrasing of questions).
  18. strengths and Weaknesses of Analogical Arg.
    • Relevant analogies: The similarities between the objects under comparison to be important and relevant.
    • Few strong disanalogies: There should be no significant disanalogies between the objects under comparison.(NO STRONG CONTRAST)
    • Diverse objects: If a wide range of objects that have X, Y, Z, all have F, then our confidence that things with X, Y, Z have F should go up, so, if we know that object A has X, Y, Z our analogical argument improves.
    • Strength of Conclusion: Like statistical generalizations, analogical arguments are better when their conclusion is weaker.
  19. Straw Man fallacy
     makes an argument against a claim that wasn’t made in the first place by mischaracterizing the views or claim

    ie. continental drift & the speed (being fast)
  20. Reductio Ad Absurdium
    •  aim to show that a conclusion or premise if it’s true is absurd
    • i.e. Tiger Woods being better than any golfer when he can't be better than himself--> better than any other golfer
  21. False Dichotomy
    • offering a limited number of choices and presenting them as the only  option even though there are clearly more options. 
    • i.e. if you don't use social media you are shut in when in fact there are other options
  22. Refutation by Parallel Reasoning
    • argues that the structure of the claim is bad or problematic.
    • i.e. sking causing injuries so so children under 16 shouldnt be allowed to ski  is just like saying automobiles causes death so they should be banned.

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview