PHIL 1000Y Study Guide - Final Guide: Divine Command Theory, Ontological Argument, Rule Utilitarianism

133 views6 pages

olivemacaw308

15 Nov 2011

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

It is irrational to believe in something you cannot prove: ought implies can, if you ought to prove something, then it must be the case that you can prove something. Impossible to prove the non-existence of something you would need to search the entire universe and not find what you were looking for, which would take an infinite amount of time. It would take an infinite amount of time to see all the powers and label someone all-powerful. First cause argument: argument does not establish that the first cause is god, even if the premises are true, the conclusion that god was the 1st cause is false. Design argument: humans have evolved over millions of years and are the result of many mutations. Watches cannot reproduce, so the processes that create the two are not the same: every process that resulted in the creation of humans is equally unlikely.

Related Questions

yiyp and wen were having an argument.they had jsut seen and adventure movie about space traval.the spaceships made interesting sounds as they zipped through outter space.yiyp said that there should have been no sounds when the spaceship had been flyiing through out the space.she told wen shounds have to traval through something ike arir or wateror something solid.sounds cant traval in outter space beacause theres nothing there.wen said but all the movies i see about space have noise to show the spaceships are moving just like when you hear an airplane you know its going to be somewhere they cant be worng ! what would you tell the girls to settle their arguments ?

If on a microscopic level, the smallest particles that make usupmove with us as we move, surely they are moving extremelyfast inrelation to their size, so if our universe was justpart of a tinyparticle making up something ridiculously big and itmoved, would webe moving faster than the speed of light?
So fast we can't comprehend, is this possible?

I apologise if this is a stupid question but if space isinfinitelysmall and big I cant understand how it could beimpossible.

I had previously worked this problem but after trying toformulate the Lagrange for r and phi, my work became a jumbled messthat took several lines of paper to write down. I thought this wasa problem so I checked Cramster to make sure I was following thecorrect path and found that the Cramster formula for Kinetic Energywas much different from mine. I found the correct answer forPotential Energy, but I do not understand how the Kinetic answerwas formed. The way I originally started the problem was by makinga drawing which was exactly like the one in the answer key andwriting out the conversions from Cartesian to sphericalcoordinates.

x = rsin(Î±)cos(Ï)

y = rsin(Î±)sin(Ï)

z = rcos(Î±)

The kinetic energy is then

T = (1/2)m[d/dt((rsin(Î±)cos(Ï))^2 + (rsin(Î±)sin(Ï))^2 +(rcos(Î±))^2)]

Applying the time derivative makes a mess of things and trigidentities are not simplifying things which has led me to theconclusion that something must be wrong in my initial setup. What Ido not understand is how the Cramster answer has a kinetic energyof

T = (1/2)m[rdot^2 + (rsinÎ±Ïdot)^2]

If an explanation of how this is achieved can be provided, Iwould be incredibly grateful.

PHIL 1000Y Study Guide - Final Guide: Divine Command Theory, Ontological Argument, Rule Utilitarianism

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHIL 1000Y Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Intentional Stance, Folk Psychology, Physicalism

PHIL 10100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Opata Language

PHIL202 Lecture 2: Lecture 2

Related Questions