Exam 4: Plato the Beginning of Everything

Parsons says, "Most theologians and philosophers have taken 'all-powerful' to mean that God can do anything except make ..."

For James, a dead hypothesis is one which does not appeal as a real possibility to him to whom it is proposed.

Paley concludes that "Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. There cannot be design without a designer."

Kierkegaard says, "Thus I always reason from _________, not toward _________, whether I move in the sphere of palpable sensible fact or in the realm of thought."

What is the issue involved in the idea that we expect similar effects from similar causes, and how does it impact the argument from analogy?

James says, "The thesis I defend is this: Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds."

What support does Berkeley provide for his argument that "When in broad daylight I open my eyes, it is not in my power to choose whether I shall see or no, or to determine what particular objects shall present themselves to my view"?

According to Cleanthes, the world and every part of it is nothing but one great machine. "The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy: By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a law of nature."

In one of his proofs for the existence of God, Aquinas says, "If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover."

Explain in detail the "two great principles" that Leibniz claims grounds our reasonings.

Why does Clifford assert that, "No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe"? Do you agree with Clifford?

Leibniz says that our reasonings are grounded upon two great principles, the second in virtue of which we hold that there can be no fact unless there be a sufficient reason, why it should be so and not otherwise, although these reasons are not always known by us.

What does Kierkegaard mean when he says, "But if when I speak of proving God's existence I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which exists, is God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, least of all an existence, but merely develop the content of a conception"?

Leibniz concludes, "Thus the final reason of things must be in a _________ substance, and this substance we call God."

Explain in detail Demea's a priori argument for the existence of God.

Explain Mackie's criticism of the following position: "The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil."

Parsons says, "Scientists of the 19th century therefore distinguished between spiritual laws, God's direct actions, and laws of nature, the physical processes whereby God's aims were achieved in the natural world."

Parsons says, " Since Epicurus' conclusion has the logical form of a disjunction-either God is not all-powerful or he is not perfectly good-apparently believers must choose which disjunct they wish to discard." Furthermore, "the real implication of Epicurus' argument is that such a God ..."

Pascal claims that you must wager that either God exists or He doesn't exist. "Let us weigh the two cases: if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then unhesitatingly that He exists."

What does Parsons mean by a "morally sufficient reason"?