1. Argument is valid if the conclusion is entailed within the premises. Inductive
arguments can still be valid even though the conclusion is not entailed in the
premises as long as the premises are true. In deductive arguments, if the premises
are false, the argument can still be valid which is why an argument must also be
sound. An argument is sound if it is valid (premises entail the conclusion) and all
of the premises are true.
2. William Paley created The Global Argument from Design in order to support
the view that an intelligent designer created the universe. Paley gives the example
of a watch that is found on a remote beach. Is it more logical to assume that the
watch came from the crashing together of rocks, or that the watch was created by
an intelligent designer? Obviously an intelligent designer created the watch. Paley
compares humans to the watch and says that similar to a watch, humans have a
direct purpose (to survive and reproduce) and therefore must have been created by
an intelligent designer (God).
The Uniqueness Objection raised by Hume is that we are mistaken in
comparing the universe to a watch. We know that someone had to have created
the watch for it to exist because we have experienced a watchmaker creating
watches. The universe on the other hand is unique and we have no past experience
of an intelligent designer creating the universe. The uniqueness of the universe
makes the watch and the universe incomparable.
• Disanalogy – weakens the argument
3. The problem of evil is that if we consider God to be omnipotent, omnipresent and
omniscient, why can’t He remove evil from the world? Natural Evil refers to the
evils that result from natural processes such as earthquakes, tsunamis etc. John
Hick responds to the question asked earlier by saying that natural/nonmoral evil is
necessary for people to “make souls” and exercise their moral character. A world
with natural evil and opportunities to exercise moral character is better than a
world without natural evil and no opportunities to exercise moral character.
4. Causal Determinism states that if we know the facts of one time and the laws of
nature, we can predict the future. If determinism is true, God should be fully
capable of predicating the future. The problem with determinism is that if one’s
actions are determined, how can that person act freely? You can hold one of the
four following views:
Incompatibilism: Free will only exists if Determinism is false
Hard Determinism (d’Holbach): We have free will only if Determinism is false.
Determinism is true, so we have no free will.
Libertarianism (Chisholm): We have free will only if Determinism is false. We
have free will so determinism is false.
Compatibilism (Ayer): Free will and Determinism can coexist.
5. In the Giant Robot Objection, you are being forced by a giant robot to move
your hand up and down ceaselessly. After numerous attempts to stop the robot,
you decide that you would be happier if you simply raised your hand up and down with the robot. Here you have chosen to raise your hand (free will) but you are
being forced to do so at the same time. Clearly