PHIL 347 FINAL QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS 100% CORRECT
Omnipotence - ANS-- God can do anything that is intrinsically (non-contradictory)
possible for God to do
Omniscience - ANS-- 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 - ANS-(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? - ANS-(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 - ANS-- 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 - ANS-- *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 - ANS-- it is NOT evident that
conceivability or consistency imply possibility
Quantum objection to Kalam - ANS-- 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 - ANS-- an absence of an observed cause is NOT the same
as absence of a *real cause*
Kraal's objections to Kalam - ANS-- "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 - ANS-(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 - ANS-- 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 - ANS-(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 - ANS-(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) - ANS-(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
ANSWERS 100% CORRECT
Omnipotence - ANS-- God can do anything that is intrinsically (non-contradictory)
possible for God to do
Omniscience - ANS-- 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 - ANS-(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? - ANS-(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 - ANS-- 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 - ANS-- *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 - ANS-- it is NOT evident that
conceivability or consistency imply possibility
Quantum objection to Kalam - ANS-- 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 - ANS-- an absence of an observed cause is NOT the same
as absence of a *real cause*
Kraal's objections to Kalam - ANS-- "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 - ANS-(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 - ANS-- 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 - ANS-(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 - ANS-(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) - ANS-(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
