November 2, 2009
Accepts the principle of Sufficient reason
There must be an explanaton (a) of the existence of any being, and (b) of the existence of any positive
1) is valid
2) is it sound? Clarke has a different justification
1. Every being that exists or ever did exist is iether a contigent (dependent) being or a necessary
( everything in the world that existed now, has existed before)
D(contigent) v Necesserary(independent) > always will exist (wasnt produced or created by anyone
2. not every being can be contingent (dependent) being.
3.) therefore there exists a necessary being, called God.
Premise 1: justified by PSR (a)
Premise 2: Justified by PSR (b)
Question:Is this argument sound?
1) beings can be D(contingent) or Necessary (independent)
2) Not every being exist can be dependent
3) threfore there exist at least one independent
WHY ARE TEHRE DEPENDENT BEINGS?
Explanations are things that asnwer WHY?
We have to presuppose, assume that the world is intelligent.
www.notesolution.com Philosophy class LECTURE november 4, 09
First essay explication section if you may if you so choose, give a critical oppinion.
exposition is not a summary, not a book report, it is giving main argument or main conclusion or a
reason in which the.
EXPOSISTION IS SHORT!
what is the most important thing?
Good exposition is just a good sentence.
Short exposisition is NEVER a summary.
When reading a philosophy article make sure you can re-write it in your own words, never in the words
of the author
a) P1 everything is iether dependent or self-sufficient
b) P2 not verything can be dependent
PSS principle of sufficient reason
a) every being
b) explanation of every being
objections to argument:
1) treats the collection of dependednt beings as if it were dependent being
2) makes an incorrect inference
3) once each dependent is being explained, there is nothing left to explain.
C1 explanation for each member, each individual
C2 explanantion for why there are any
Arguments FOR God
things that exist
Things that exist Tings that DNE
www.notesolution.com Philosophy tutorial november 6, 09
-its a live argument (people still talk about it now)
watch was complex has parts, very precise, has goal or purpose
all these characteristics needs explanation (what explanation does it have why its there?) IT
WAS MADE BY HUMANS! Aliens!
Paley said theres an AGENT that made that, theres no natural reason
Stone its simple, precise, no goal, basic (natural explanation)
what if you find a heart shape, what is the explantion for this heart shape?
Natural explanation random/accidental, no goal, ie erosion.
Plaey said 1)theres an infinite chain of watch, the watch now was from before and the one from before
and so on. Machine that makes another machine that makes the next machine.
2) there has to be an agent that made the first watch. Machine that
Regress: there should be a first cause , or a thing should come from another thing and that very first
thing is the independent thing.
Its like a hanger hangs from something and other hanger is hanged from another hanger and so on.
Tehre no RANDOM chance that such a complicated thing was mde random.
The simple thing (rock) dont need an explnation
the more complex thing (watch) needed a designer. (some one had to have the blue print)
the more more complex thing (plants, humans) needed an agent to have designed or made it.
-You dont need to know how the watch are being made
-you dont need to know the parts of the watch and the functions of the watch
-humans are hallucinating, watch is still a watch, were just taught to see it as a watch
-watch doesnt have to work or have its goal, even if the thing is not as effective, or does not do its
function, it does not matter, tehre was still an agent who made it
THERE MUST BE A DESIGNER
www.notesolution.com PHILOSOPHY LECTURE November 9, 09
Dogs Fountain of youth
Empire state building unicorns
mars The abominable snowman
Contingent things things on the on side of the table that COULD HAVE been on the other side
Impossible things thing on the right side that COULD NOT have been on the left side
necessary things things on the left side of the line that COULD NOT have been on the right side
Anselm: anything that you thing that does not exist still exists in UDERSTANDING.
1. Existence in the understading you have a concept of it, its a possible being
2. Existence in reality
3. God is that being which none greater in conceivable (thinkable/ possible)
4. Existence in reality is a great making quality (ie a perfection)
existence in understanding are possible could be contingent or necessary
4 concept: existence in reality is PERFECTION
exist in reality exist in understaning
exist in understand COULD exist in reality
something that is in existence in understanding that could be in existence in reality is missing