Exam 4: Plato the Beginning of Everything

Joyce says, "The sufferings of men are directed primarily to the good of the sufferer himself, while they also afford to others an opportunity for the practice of virtue." Do you agree with Joyce?

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

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 ..."

Descartes says, "for it is not in my power to conceive a God without _________, that is a being supremely perfect, and yet devoid of an absolute perfection, as I am free to imagine a horse with or without wings."

Kierkegaard 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 ..."

Paley claims that, "It is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to show with what design it was made: still less necessary, where the only question is, whether it were made with any design at all."

For Nietzsche, we need to get rid of the religious idea of absolute values and spiritual revelation.

Parsons says that "the real implication of Epicurus' argument is that such a God does not exist." First, explain Epicurus' argument. Second, discuss why you agree or disagree with the conclusion.

Why does Leibniz conclude that the final reason of things is in a necessary substance?

Why does the speaker assert that "Everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause"?

Parsons says, "Since God created nature and human beings, it must follow that God, at least indirectly, is the creator of both ..."

Explain Lammenranta's point when he asserts that "because Descartes's proof presupposes that reason is reliable, it is hard to see how he could remove these doubts by it."

Kierkegaard 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."

For Berkeley, "The ideas of Sense are more strong, lively, and distinct than those of the imagination...in a regular train or series, the admirable connection whereof sufficiently testifies the wisdom and benevolence of its Disposition."

Why, according to most theologians and philosophers, can God do anything except make a contradiction true?

In one of his proofs for the existence of God, Aquinas says, "Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is metaphorical."

Explain Aquinas's first proof for the existence of God. Do you agree with Aquinas?

According to Demea, "The unity too of the Divine Nature, it is very difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to deduce merely from contemplating the beliefs of the ancients."

Kierkegaard says, "But between the God and his works there is an absolute relationship; God is not a name but a concept. Is this perhaps the reason that his essentia involvit existentiam [essence involves existence]?"

Explain why Nietzsche thinks that we need to get rid of the religious idea of absolute values and universal moral laws.