God made us free; it is up to use whether we do or evil.

consequence of this freedom is that ther is more evil than would be strictly necessary for soul-building

Premise 1 - if god were to exist, then that being would be all powerful, all knowing, and all good (all PKG)

Premise 2 - if an all PKG being existed, then there would be no evil

Premise 3 - There is evil

Conclusion: Hence, there is no God

deductively valid.

• If he is all Good, he wants to prevent evil
• If he is all knowing, he knows the difference between right and wrong
• If he is all powerful, he can prevent evil if he so wishes

Internalism

(related to KK principle)

externalism

(related to KK principle)

explanation of features depends on prior things

(a posteriori)

teleological argument for god

(Simple design argument)

explanation of feature argues that the best explanations for the features is that its the product of design

(A posteriori)

1. among objects that are goal directed, some have minds and some dont.

2. an object that acts to achieve goals but does not have a mind, must have been designed by beings with minds

3. there exists a being with a mind who designed all mindless objects that act to achieve goals

GOD EXISTS

*from 2-3 there is a Birthday fallacy, every artifact has a designer, but does not require to be the SAME designer

Aquinas' 5th argument for God

Ontological argument for God

anselm

think of the concept of the definition alone of God and deduce that he exists

(a priori)

• God is by definition greatest being possible
• a being who fails to exist in the actual world (while iexisting other worlds) is less perfect than a being who exsists in all possible worlds.

• ---

  Hence, God exists, necessarily

premise 1 -

for something to be possible, it isnt enough that you can conceive of its happening; possibilitity is according to whcich what is possible and doesnt vary from one thinker to another

 premise 2

if a being exists everywhere, it is a necessary being. it does not depend on its existence from other things, like contingent beings

If S knows that p, then S knows that she knows p.

premise 1. If you do not believe that you have knowledge, then you dont know that you have knowledge.

premise 2. if you dont know that you have knowledge, then you dont have knowledge.

Conclusion. If you do not believe that you have knowledge, then you dont have knowledge

deductively valid

reducto ad absurdum

(RAA)

A deductively valid form of argument in which one proves that P is true by showing that:

1) if P were walse, A would have to be true, and

2) A is false

Theaetetus'

1st proposal

proposal - All sciences are knowledge

objections -

• not unified (does not tell us the nature of knowledge)
• Implicitly circular argument

Theaetetus'

2nd proposal

proposal - Konwledge = perception

objection - if K=P, than every instance of knowledge would be an instance of perception

Theaetetus'

3rd proposal

Theaetetus'

4th proposal

premise 1. everything has a cause

premise 2. nothing is the cause of itself

premise 3. the chain of causes cant go on forever (infinite)

Premise 4. therefore there must be a first cause

premise 5. God exists

descibes when an observations O strongly favors one hypothesis (H1) over another (H2). there are 2 requirements

1. if H1 were true, you would expect O to be true
2. if H2 were true, you would expect O to be false.

if H1 is true, O would be unsurprising

if H2 is true, O would be surprising

2 types of evil

(argument from evil)

1. human actions causing evil

2. evils that exist because of natural events (earthquakes, typhoons, etc)

Reject premise 2: explain why an all PKG God would allow evil to exist

asking what is possible holdingfixed the cirumstances

"picking up toys when hands are full"

hold fixed the laws of nautre, physics, science

"can you fly around the room"

hold fixed the laws of logic

asks if it is possible to tell a coherent story

-imagine a possible world in which these things are attainable

problems with Aquinas' argument

premise 2

RAA

premises 1 & 4 contradict each other

mutually inconsistant belief

the move from premise 4 to 5 doesnt prove that 1st cause is equal to the definition of God

showing people who already believe in God additional motivatioin, but it doesnt prove it logically

RAA over premise 2

-if something could cause itself, it would exist prior to itself, which is absurd.

problems with Aquinas' argument continued

premise 3

premise 3 - the chain of causes cant be infinite

-use RAA

-if chain of causes were infinite, would be no first cause

-if there were no first cause, there would be no subsequent cause, and hence no causes now (nothing would exist)

-but there are causes now, things do exist

2 actions, 2 ways of the world.

1. believe in god, He exists = infinite reward
2. dont believe in got, he exists = infinite punishment
3. believe in god, does not exist = - 10
4. does not believe in god, does not exist = - 10

you cant treat belief as an action since you cant believe a proposition; belief is not an action you control in that way

decision theory is about choosing actions that you can perform if you want to

pascal realized you cant suddenly believe something, but you can choose to live your life in such a way that belief will come naturally after a while.