34997623
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Thomas Woodcock, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Thomas Woodcock
vor fast 3 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God? | The cosmological argument is an inductive argument that deals with the cause of the universe. |
| What does necessary mean? | It has to be be and couldn't be otherwise |
| What does contingent mean? | Doesn't have to be and could be otherwise |
| 'Nothing comes from nothing'? | Everything comes from something, if we start from nothing we will end with nothing |
| What is cause and effect? | If something happens then something else will follow, every action has a consequence, the relationship between two events such that one is brought about by the other. |
| What were Aquinas' three cosmological arguements? | the argument from motion, the argument from causation and the 3rd way is the argument from CONTINGENCY |
| What is 'causa sui' | the un-caused cause |
| What is infinite regress? | going back forever without end |
| What is Aquinas' argument from motion? | 1. Everything is in motion 2. everything that moves was made to move by something else, nothing moves itself 3. there can't be an infinite regress of moving things therefore their must of have been an original mover that wasn't moved- an unmoved mover |
| What is Aquinas' 3rd cosmological argument from contingency? | 1. Everything in the universe exists contingently 2. everything that exists contingently at one point didn't exist 3. if this is true then at some point everything didn't exist, however this can't be true because nothing comes from nothing Therefore there had to exist that started this that isn't contingent, a necessary being-God |
| What is Hume's fork? | Relations of ideas (a priori,deductive, analytic statements,tautologies, absolutes) and Matters of fact (a posteriori, inductive,synthetic statements,probable). No relation of idea will bring about matters of fact and vice versa |
| an example of relation of ideas and matters of fact? | relation of ideas-causer and effect,identity,space and time matters of fact-A treatise of Human nature is a book by David Hume and was a bachelor |
| How does Hume's fork relate to the cosmological argument? | No amount of evidence will give us a relationship between facts we never observe any relationships between events, but only exist between ideas. For cause and effect, we think everything has a cause because we see things being caused, we never see a relationship we could call causation, we only think it |
| What was Coplostan's cosmological argument? | 1. The universe is made up of contingent objects 2. Contingent objects don't contain within themselves the explanation for their own existence 3. There must be a sufficient explanation for their existence 4. There can't be an infinite regress of contingent objects because then they wouldn't have a sufficient explanation 5. The only sufficient explanation for the existence of a contingent universe is the existence of a necessary being. |
| What was Russell's first response? | We can only use the word 'necessary' when talking about ideas or analytic propositions about ideas, no amount of evidence will reveal things that are necessary, so we can't use the word 'necessary' when referring to things in the universe |
| What was Coplostan's response to Russell? | There can be no contingent existence without necessary existence, if something exists then something necessary exists, there can be no sufficient explanation for the existence of contingent objects without it |
| What was Russell's second response to Coplostan? | There is no sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe, its existence is just a 'brute fact' (a fact with no explanation), a necessary being is one where existence would be part of its nature/essence, no such being exists. |
| What was Coplostan's second response to Russell? | Arguing with someone who won't allow an opponent to use the word 'necessary' when talking about the world is like trying to play chess with someone who won't take the first move |
| What was Russell's final response to Coplostan? | The fallacy of composition,you can say that because a thing is true of something's parts, it is therefore true of the whole, just because we have mothers, doesn't mean the universe has a mother. |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.