Logic
1) Anyone born in Florida is an alligator
2) Bob Dylan was born in Florida
C) Therefore, Bob Dylan is an alligator
Valid (if the premises were true, the conclusion would also have to be true)
not sound (the premises are not true)
My parents --> me
Tectonic plates --> mountain
Builders --> a houseObjection: Leibniz' argument assumes that the series of contingent beings cannot be infinite, therefore, the argument is circular and unconvincing
What is wrong with this objection?
Leibniz does not assume that the series of contingent beings cannot be infinite
he's totally fine with the possibility of it being infinite
What two propositions regarding the existence of God and the existence of evil does Mackie think are logically inconsistent?
God exists and there is evil
Describe the difference between soundness and validity in your own words
Validity means that the conclusion must be true IF the premises are true. The premises may or not be true.
Soundness means that the argument is logically valid AND the premises are actually true.
Validity is part of soundness, but not all of it. Soundness requires one further step
Why does Aquinas say the series of efficient causes cannot be circular?
If the series is circular, then one thing in the series must indirectly cause itself. To do this, it would have to exist prior to itself existing, which is impossible
What is something that contingent and necessary beings have in common?
What is something they don't have in common
a) they exist!
b) Contingent beings may have possibly not existed; necessary beings HAD TO exist
What does Mackie claim about a perfectly good being? What does this being do?
A perfectly good being eliminates every evil it can
Why does Aquinas say the series of efficient causes cannot be infinite?
If the series is infinite, there is no first cause
the first cause is the cause of the second cause, and so on...
If there was no first, then there could be no second, nor anything after the second
this is false; a series of causes exists
What is the PSR? What is our common, everyday reason for accepting it?
Principle of Sufficient Reason: every contingent being has an explanation of it's existence
Everyday, we assume that things don't just happen without any reason at all. I know that my room will look as I left it as long as nobody goes in to disrupt it; the things will not rearrange on their own for no reason at all
Can an omnipotent being do literally anything? If there's anything they can't do, what would that be?
What is one possible objection we raised to Aquinas' argument?
Aquinas' argument is circular, meaning it inappropriately assumes the truth of the conclusion
Aquinas' third premise seems to assume that everything depends on a first cause, which is practically the conclusion he's trying to argue for
Why does Leibniz think that that the explanation for Collection C's existence must be found outside of C?
C is a contingent being
Any explanation we can find within C won't be fully satisfying, because we still wonder what caused that being and so on to infinity
Infinitely copied book: no book within the series serves as an explanation of why the series exsits at all
What are higher-order goods?
Goods that, by definition, require the existence of some evil