(not about ships this time)

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

General Argument from Evil Against the Existence of God The argument that an all-powerful, all- knowing, and perfectly good God would not allow any—or.

Advertisements

Introduction to Proofs

Two puzzles about omnipotence

Chapter 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof.

Two puzzles about omnipotence

René Descartes ( ) Father of modern rationalism. Reason is the source of knowledge, not experience. All our ideas are innate. God fashioned us.

Phil 1000 Bradley Monton Class 4 The Problem of Evil.

The Philosophy of Christianity Scholasticism. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274)  Dominican Monk  Primary work was Summa Theologica  Wanted to make a science.

The evidential problem of evil

The Ontological Proof For around a thousand years, various proofs for the existence of God have gone by the name ‘The Ontological Proof.’ The first person.

© Michael Lacewing Omnipotence and other puzzles Michael Lacewing co.uk.

Goals Define “God” by the Judeo-Christian definition Define omnipotence, omniscience, omni- benevolence, and omni-presence Be able to list and defend several.

So far we have learned about:

Phil 1000 Two weeks on God, with Professor Bradley Monton.

EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 5 Analysis of arguments (continued) More example proofs Formalisation of arguments in natural language Proof by contradiction.

Results from Meditation 2

© Michael Lacewing The attributes of God Michael Lacewing

Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil By David Kelsey.

The Problem of Evil The Logical Problem. Epicurus Greek philosopher who founded the Epicurean School of philosophy in Athens. Epicurus’ formulation of.

The Ontological Proof (II) We have seen that, if someone wishes to challenge the soundness of the Modal Ontological, he denies the truth of the second.

Can you... Square a circle...?? Try it on the paper in front of you! Could you do this if you were all-powerful?

Divine Attributes Miscellaneous Proofs of the existence of God

1 Lesson 11: Criteria of a good argument SOCI Thinking Critically about Social Issues Spring 2012.

Introduction to Geometric Proof Logical Reasoning and Conditional Statements.

Theodicy And The Problem Of Evil  The Argument Against Western Theism: Reason To Doubt That A Christian God Exists 1. Christianity Assumes God Is Omniscient,

Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.

Logical Reasoning:Proof Prove the theorem using the basic axioms of algebra.

Study Questions for Quiz 1 1. The Concept of Validity (20 points) a. You will be asked to give the two different definitions of validity given in the lecture.

God. Character of God Omnipotence Omnipotence Character of God Omnipotence Omnipotence God can do anything.

Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.

Theodicy: The Study of Evil  If God is Benevolent (all-good), Omnipotent (all-powerful) and Omniscient (all-knowing), how could evil exist?  In other.

Islamic Studies unit 1.7 By Abida Mohammed 10S.

Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil By David Kelsey.

Certainty and ErrorCertainty and Error One thing Russell seems right about is that we don’t need certainty in order to know something. In fact, even Descartes.

Omnipotence and other puzzles Michael Lacewing co.uk Michael Lacewing co.uk.

© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.1 Chapters1 & 2.

 You will be able to use theorems and definitions to find the measures of angles.  You will be able to use theorems and definitions to write a formal.

This week’s aims To practise planning and writing answers to past questions To set out written work in a clear, integrated, logical form To explain and.

As you are walking home from College, you take a detour and walk along a canal. To your horror, you see a 5-year-old child fall in and start to drown.

Axioms and Theorems. Remember syllogisms? The Socrates Syllogism All human beings are mortal Socrates is a human being Therefore Socrates is mortal premises.

OA: Faith and Reason What difference does the argument make

a valid argument with true premises.

Omnipotence and other puzzles

The paradox of the stone

Gettier and the analysis of knowledge

Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil

Descartes’ ontological argument

Michael Lacewing The attributes of God Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.

The Problem of Evil.

Check It Out! Example 1 Write an indirect proof that a triangle cannot have two right angles. Step 1 Identify the conjecture to be proven. Given: A triangle’s.

Lesson 5 – 4 Indirect Proof

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Validity and Soundness

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

The Problem of Evil.

Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil

The problem of evil makes belief in God irrational

Think, pair, Share The paradox of the stone Can God make a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? Discuss in pairs.

The Problem of Evil.

Logical Fallacies.

5.6 Inequalities in Two Triangles and Indirect Proof

Chapter 5 Parallel Lines and Related Figures

Patterns of Informal Non-Deductive Logic (Ch. 6)

5.1 Indirect Proof Let’s take a Given: Prove: Proof: Either or

ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.

The Problem of Evil.

If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.

Presentation transcript:

(not about ships this time) Another Puzzle (not about ships this time)

Consider the following arguments: #1 If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), then He can do anything. If He can do anything, then he can make a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it. If there exists a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. Therefore, if God is omnipotent, then he is not omnipotent. But, this is a contradiction. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. But, if God is not omnipotent, then He is not God. Therefore, God does not exist.

Argument #2 If God exists, then He is omnipotent, omniscient (all knowing), and omni-benevolent (all good). If God is omnibenevolent, then He wishes to prevent evil, if evil exists. If God is omniscient, then He knows that evil exists, if evil does exist. If God is omnipotent, then He can prevent evil, if He knows that evil exists. Evil does exist. Therefore, either God is not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not omnibenevolent. But if He is not any one of these things, then He does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist.

Argument #3 If I am free (or have free will), then it is not the case that anyone can know what I will decide to do in the future, until and unless I decide to do it. If God is omniscient, then He knows what I will decide to do in the future. Therefore, either I am not free or God does not exist. But I am free, therefore God does not exist.

Argument #4 If God is the omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe, then He a) wants to create the best possible universe, and b) He can create the best possible universe. Therefore, if God exists, then the present universe is the best possible universe. But the present universe is not the best possible, since we can imagine a better. Therefore, God does not exist.

Proofs that God does not exist The foregoing are supposedly proofs, but what is a ‘proof’ of something? “proof” =df. A sound deductive argument “sound” =df. Valid + true premises Recall: a valid deductive argument is one where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true (it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false) Q: are you persuaded that God does not exist? Why not?

What proofs do (& don’t do) Consider another proof (of the interior angles theorem) Q: if you are persuaded in this case but not in the previous ones, why? What is different about this case (or what is different about the previous cases?) Q: Can proofs be given for the existence of something? If proofs can’t force or compel belief, what are they supposed to do? (think about rationality)