Argument from contingency Part 2. Recap  Necessary beings: exist as a necessity of their own nature. (Potential examples: numbers, God.)  Contingent.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Anselm On the Existence of God. “Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe, but rather I believe so that I can understand. For I believe this.
Advertisements

Ambiguous contents? Arvid Båve, Higher seminar in Theoretical Philosophy, FLoV, Gothenburg University, 8 May 2013.
Best Practice Precepts [... next] Arguments Arguments Possibility of the Impossible Possibility of the Impossible Belief, Truth, and Reality Belief, Truth,
Foreknowledge and free will God is essentially omniscient. So assuming that there are facts about the future, then God knows them. And it’s impossible.
Chapter Twelve: The Fact-Value Problem Chapter Twelve: The Fact-Value Problem Metaethics ► Philosophizing about the very terms of ethics ► Considering.
 Assertions: unsupported declaration of a belief  Prejudice: a view without evidence for or against  Premises: explicit evidence that lead to a conclusion.
“… if (the best philosophy) doesn ’ t seem peculiar you haven ’ t understood it ” Edward Craig.
BIRDS FLY. is a bird Birds fly Tweety is a bird Tweety flies DEFEASIBLE NON-MONOTONIC PRESUMPTIVE?
Aquinas’s First Way – highlights It’s impossible for something to put itself into motion. Therefore, anything in motion is put into motion by something.
Taylor - argument for God from contingency & necessity ~ slide 1 Richard Taylor’s argument for God from contingency & necessity 1. Basic datum - the very.
Moral Realism & the Challenge of Skepticism
The Cosmological Argument. Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument Cosmological Argument is ‘a posteriori’ Attempts to prove the existence of God There are three.
The Cosmological and Teleological Arguments for God.
Cosmological arguments from contingency Michael Lacewing
Basic Argumentation.
Why Does Anything at all Exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? Leibniz - the principle of sufficient reason.
LECTURE 20 THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON: CAN IT BE SAVED?
PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
FALSE PREMISE.
Making a Claim Grounds for Claim Evaluation Beyond Brainstorm.
Chapter 10 Evaluating Premises: Self-Evidence, Consistency, Indirect Proof Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
The Teleological Proof A Posteriori Argument: A argument in which a key premise can only be known through experience of the actual world. Principle of.
Welcome to Ethics Ethics and citizens rights DR. BURTON A. AGGABAO Professorial lecturer
CLARKE & ROWE (pp ) IS A NECESSARY BEING REALLY NECESSARY?
Why Does Anything at all Exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? Leibniz - the principle of sufficient reason.
By Arunav, Aran, Humza.
LECTURE 19 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL OBJECTION DEPENDS UPON A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION WE MIGHT REASONABLY SUSPEND.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
LECTURE 17 THE MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (A VARIANT OF HARTSHORNE’S VERSION)
Why do laws explain?. Laws are universal statements of the form “All a’s are b’s,” “Whenever an event of type C occurs, an event of type E occurs,” “If.
LECTURE 23 MANY COSMOI HYPOTHESIS & PURPOSIVE DESIGN (SUMMARY AND GLIMPSES BEYOND)
Narrow narrow content Narrow content is whatever is shared by physical duplicates. It is a function (in the mathematical sense) from environments to broad.
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God August 15, 2015 George Cronk, J.D., Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy & Religion Bergen Community College.
Philosophy and Logic The Process of Correct Reasoning.
Errors in Reasoning. Fallacies A Fallacy is “any error in reasoning that makes an argument fail to establish its conclusion.” There are two kinds of fallacies.
Learning objective: To understand the objection that even if a zombie world is conceivable it may not be possible, and to evaluate how convincing this.
What is an argument? An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition." Huh? Three.
Anselm & Aquinas. Anselm of Canterbury ( AD) The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God (Text, pp )
 To know and understand the Kalam Argument for the existence of God.  To evaluate the Kalam argument.
The Cosmological Argument Today’s lesson will be successful if: You have revised the ideas surrounding the cosmological argument and the arguments from.
The Copleston, Russell Debate Copleston’s Cosmological argument (1948 BBC radio debate)
Relativism, Divine Command Theory, and Particularism A closer look at some prominent views of ethical theory.
Criticisms of the Cosmological argument Hume, Mackie and Anscombe.
THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT. THE MAIN CONCERN OF LOGIC Basically in logic we deal with ARGUMENTS. Mainly we deal with learning of the principles with which.
Part One: Assessing the Inference, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning.
Philosophy of Religion Ontological Argument
Lecture 6 Modality: Possible worlds
Cosmological arguments from contingency
Deductive reasoning.
Knowledge Empiricism 2.
The ontological argument
c) Strengths and weaknesses of Cosmological Arguments:
The Problem of Evil.
Errors in Reasoning.
On your whiteboard (1): 1. What is innate knowledge? 2. What were Plato’s arguments for innate knowledge? 3. Was he right? Explain your answer.
Anselm & Aquinas December 23, 2005.
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
COPLESTON AND RUSSELL OVERVIEW
Necessary Being Discussion 1
Norman Malcolm on the Ontological Argument
Logic Problems and Questions
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 3a Evaluating an argument
Principles of Argument
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Philosophy of Religion Arguments for the existence of God
Critical Thinking Lecture 2 Arguments
‘Assess the credibility of the cosmological argument’ (12 marks)
How to Think Logically.
Avoiding Ungrounded Assumptions
Presentation transcript:

Argument from contingency Part 2

Recap  Necessary beings: exist as a necessity of their own nature. (Potential examples: numbers, God.)  Contingent beings: non-necessary beings. Might have failed to exist, even if they have existed forever  Since contingent beings cannot account for their own existence, their existence can only be explained by other beings  Only necessary beings can adequately explain the existence of contingent beings

Recap continued  Fallacy of composition?  Brick wall analogy: If every brick in the wall is contingent (e.g. is made by a brick making machine), then it seems valid to infer that the brick wall too is contingent. Importantly, the brick wall seems contingent for the very reason that the bricks are contingent. Had those bricks not been made, then that particular brick wall would not have existed.  In any case, no need to ask whether ‘the universe’ is contingent to establish that some ‘necessary being’ is required

Recap continued  Counter argument: Argument doesn’t show that only one necessary being is required  But arguments aren’t propounded in a vacuum. A given argument needn’t do all the work we need it to do, all by itself. We build a cumulative case

Counter argument 1  Humean response: The contingency argument seems to say that God is logically necessary. But where’s the contradiction in the statement, “God does not exist”? (Compare to something like, “John is a married, unmarried man”.)  No longer considered to be a good response. There are different kinds of necessity and impossibility. The argument establishes the need for at least one ‘metaphysically’ necessary being  (Sometimes the terms ‘factually’ or ‘ontologically’ are used instead)

Metaphysical/Factual Necessity  Much stronger than mere physical necessity, but not quite as strong as strict logical necessity  If given certain facts, beyond mere physical law, the non-existence of X is impossible, we may say X’s non-existence is ‘factually impossible’

Metaphysical/Factual Necessity  This is so, notwithstanding that we might utter the sentence, “X does not exist”, without contradiction  However, we can perhaps draw out a formal fallacy. Consider the following set of statements:  1. Given certain facts (f), the non-existence of X is metaphysically impossible.  2. Those facts (f) do obtain.  3. X does not exist.  We can see that 3 contradicts 1 and 2, so if 1 and 2 are true, 3 cannot be true

Counter arguments  Rundle: It’s not necessary that any particula r material universe exist, but it is necessary that some material universe or other exist  Brick wall analogy: Although no particular collection of bricks has to exist, it is nonetheless necessary that some collection of bricks exist

Counter argument 2  Widely regarded as implausible on two grounds:  1. Why think that some universe or other has to exist? It seems like an arbitrary claim  2. The argument has a very implausible implication: If we posit the non-existence of every contingent thing except for, say, a flying spaghetti monster, then it becomes necessary that the flying spaghetti monster exist!

Next session  Kalam argument: Ties in with the contingency argument  Why does the cause of the universe have to be a living and immaterial being?