Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (650,000)
UTSC (30,000)
Philosophy (1,000)
PHLA10H3 (200)
Lecture 10

PHLA10H3 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Ontological Argument, Theodicy


Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHLA10H3
Professor
William Seager
Lecture
10

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 1 pages of the document.
Lecture 10
Ontological Argument:
-second premise:
-existence is a kind of perfection
-Sober’s criticism: a def gives a condition for something counting as that sort of thing, if part of
the def of a bachelor exists he is un married; so event if existence is in the concept of God,
that only shows that if god exits, the he exists; that is trivial and doesn't prove anything
-possible worlds version: god is a necessary being, possible for god to exist, some world god
exists, and neccesaey being, necessary beings exists in ALL possible worlds, that being is in
every world, god exists in that world
-or in terms: possible, so in some world necessary, all world, actual world (god exists)
-problems for possible worlds version: is god possible? we proved a necessary being exists -
why must it be god? sober - necessary critiscims existence chatracterizes god but that only
shows that if god exists, he exists necessarilyy
-doesn't engage possible worlds arg
Verification of God:
-theories of meaning:
-what makes words and sentences meaningful?
-positivists divided all statements into 2 class: analytic and synthetic
-ana= are true or false bc of their concepts
-syn= are true or false bc of verifying experiences
-close link btw posteriori/a priori and syn/ana
-positivists - every statement is decidable
-either via understanding the concepts in statement or we observe nature
-some statements are unverifiable and meaingless
-why should one be a verificationist?
-is a positivist prin verifiable? analytic?
-design arg. suggests some auxiliary hypo which makes gods exists falliblee or verifiable
-imperfect adaptation
-theodicy = task of explaining why the apparent evidence against God exists sis not really
good evidence
Pascal’s Wager:
-prudential and evidential reason for belief
-ex. u get $10 to belief theres life on mars, you don't care if its true or false, you get money
-prudential reason to believe
-but u have no evidence
-Balsie Pascal: philo of 27th cent.
-invented theory of probability after being asked a gambling prob
-invented decision theory
-pascal gave an arguement which presents a prudential reason to believe in god
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version