Back to quiz

6. Give three points hume made against the argument

  • We have no experience of the universe being made, so can’t speak of it. Even if the universe did begin, nothing proves god caused it. Sufficient reason is flawed and those who look for it in the universe are looking for something that doesn’t exist.
  • We have experience of the universe being made, but can’t speak of it. Even if the universe did begin, nothing proves god caused it. Sufficient reason is flawed and those who look for it in the universe are looking for something that does exist.
  • . We have no experience of the universe being made, so can’t speak of it. Even if the universe did begin, nothing proves god caused it. Sufficient reason is flawed and those who look for it in the universe are looking for something that does exist.
  • We have experience of the universe being made, so can speak of it. Even if the universe did begin, nothing proves god caused it. Sufficient reason is flawed and those who look for it in the universe are looking for something that doesn’t exist.

7. What is the argument based on?

  • All things in the universe are contingent, they don’t contain within themselves the reason for their existence, so need something necessary to explain them.
  • All things in the universe are contingent, they don’t contain within themselves the reason for their existence, so need something contingent to explain them.
  • All things in the universe are necessary, they don’t contain within themselves the reason for their existence, so need something necessary to explain them.
  • All things in the universe are necessary, they don’t contain within themselves the reason for their existence, so need something contingent to explain them.

8. What are the last three premises of from contingency?

  • As something can’t come from nothing, something must exist necessarily. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused, you can’t have an infinite series of necessary causes, so there must be a being that has its own necessity- god.
  • As something can’t come from nothing, something must exist contingently. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused, you can have an infinite series of necessary causes, so there must be a being that has its own necessity- god.
  • As something can come from nothing, something must exist necessarily. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused, you can’t have an infinite series of necessary causes, so there must be a being that has its own necessity- god.
  • As something can’t come from nothing, something must exist contingently. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused, you can’t have an infinite series of necessary causes, so there must be a being that has its own necessity- god.

9. How does Kant oppose the argument?

  • Our knowledge of the world is limited to space and time, we can’t speculate on what exists outside of it. Necessary being is a fallacy as the premise ‘go exists’ is not a self evident proposition.
  • Our knowledge of the world is limited to space and time, we can’t speculate on what exists outside of it. Necessary being is a fallacy as the premise ‘go exists’ is a self evident proposition.
  • Our knowledge of the world is limited to space and time, we can speculate on what exists outside of it. Necessary being is a fallacy as the premise ‘god exists’ is not a self evident proposition.

10. Give three weaknesses of aquinas’ argument

  • Inductive arguments are only probable. Why does infinite regress have to be impossible? If we think of what god was doing before he chose to create the universe, we’re left with an infinite regress of him actively choosing not to create the universe.
  • Deductive arguments are only probable. Why does infinite regress have to be impossible? If we think of what god was doing before he chose to create the universe, we’re left with an infinite regress of him actively choosing not to create the universe.
  • Inductive arguments are unfounded. Why does infinite regress have to be impossible? If we think of what god was doing before he chose to create the universe, we’re left with an infinite regress of him actively choosing not to create the universe.
  • Deductive arguments are unfounded. Why does infinite regress have to be impossible? If we think of what god was doing before he chose to create the universe, we’re left with an infinite regress of him actively choosing not to create the universe.

11. Explain Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason

  • 1. Nothing takes place with sufficient reason. 2. The world is contingent, to have sufficient reason we must get back to something non contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and is god.
  • 1. Nothing takes place without sufficient reason. 2. The world is contingent, to have sufficient reason we must get back to something non contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and is god.
  • 1. Nothing takes place without sufficient reason. 2. The world is contingent, to have sufficient reason we must get back to something non contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and is not god.
  • 1. Everything takes place without sufficient reason. 2. The world is contingent, to have sufficient reason we must get back to something non contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and is god.

12. What are the four premises of from motion?

  • There are things in a state of motion, nothing can change by itself- they are secondary movers. If all things are SM there would be an infinite regress of SM. If this is true, there’d be no PM, so no SMs. There are SM so there must be an unmoved PM.
  • There are things in a state of motion, nothing can change by itself- they are secondary movers. If all things are SM there would be an infinite regress of SM. If this is true, there’d be no PM, so no SMs. There are SM so there must be a moved PM.
  • There are things in a state of motion, nothing can change by itself- they are secondary movers. If all things are SM there would be an infinite regress of SM. If this is true, there’d be no PM, so no SMs. There are SM so there must be no unmoved PM.
  • There are things in a state of motion, nothing can change by itself- they are secondary movers. If all things are SM there would be an infinite regress of SM. If this is true, there’d be no PM, so no SMs. There are SM so there must be an unmoved SM.

13. What is Hume’s fallacy of composition?

  • Just because something is true of the part, it must be true about the whole. Just because things in the universe are caused does not mean the whole universe was caused.
  • Just because something is true of the part, it must be true about the whole. Just because things in the universe are caused means the whole universe was caused.
  • Just because something is true of the whole, it must be true about the part. Just because things in the universe are caused does not mean the whole universe was caused.
  • Just because something is true of the whole, it must be true about the whole. Just because things in the universe are caused does not mean the whole universe was caused.

14. Explain Craig’s use of the third law of thermodynamics

  • In an isolated system, the amount of energy increases with time. The universe of the past had lower entropy then the universe of today. An eternal universe could not exist in the present state of disequilibrium, ergo, the universe began to exist.
  • In an isolated system, the amount of energy decreases with time. The universe of the past had lower entropy then the universe of today. An eternal universe could not exist in the present state of disequilibrium, ergo, the universe began to exist.
  • In an isolated system, the amount of entropy increases with time. The universe of the past had lower entropy then the universe of today. An eternal universe could not exist in the present state of disequilibrium, ergo, the universe began to exist.
  • In an isolated system, the amount of entropy decreases with time. The universe of the past had lower entropy then the universe of today. An eternal universe could not exist in the present state of disequilibrium, ergo, the universe began to exist.

15. What are the first three premises of from contingency?

  • In nature, everything can exist or not exist. Given infinite time, everything will eventually exist. If there was once nothing, something could come from it.
  • In nature, everything can exist or not exist. Given infinite time, everything will eventually not exist. If there was once nothing, something could come from it.
  • In nature, everything can exist or not exist. Given infinite time, everything will eventually not exist. If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it.
  • In nature, everything can exist or not exist. Given infinite time, everything will eventually not exist. If there was once something, nothing could come from it.

16. What are the four premises of the kalam argument?

  • Nothing that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe must have a cause and this cause is god.
  • Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe must have a cause and this cause is god.
  • Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe must have a cause and this cause is not god.
  • Nothing that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe must have a cause and this cause is not god.

17. What is the problem with the fallacy of composition?

  • It is too formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume the whole floor is square, but if we replace shape with color, the fallacy stands.
  • It is not formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume the whole floor is square, but if we replace shape with color, the fallacy collapses.
  • It is not formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume the whole floor is square, but if we replace shape with color, the fallacy stands.
  • It is too formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume the whole floor is square, but if we replace shape with color, the fallacy stands.

18. What is Aristotle’s cosmological argument?

  • Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. If it had one, the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. If the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! Ergo, there is an ultimate cause.
  • Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. If it didn’t have one, the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. If the chain of cause and effect had a beginning, there would be a chain! Ergo, there is an ultimate cause.
  • Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. If it didn’t have one, the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. If the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! Ergo, there is an ultimate cause.
  • Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. If it didn’t have one, the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. If the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be a chain! Ergo, there is an ultimate cause.

19. What are the four premises of from cause?

  • No event has a cause, nothing can be its own cause. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there’d be no first cause. No first cause, means no causes at all, this is true. There must be a first cause- god.
  • Every event has a cause, nothing can be its own cause. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there’d be no first cause. No first cause, means no causes at all, this is true. There must be a first cause- god.
  • Every event has a cause, nothing can be its own cause. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there’d be no first cause. No first cause, means no causes at all, this is false. There must be a first cause- god.
  • No event has a cause, anything can be its own cause. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there’d be no first cause. No first cause, means no causes at all, this is false. There must be a first cause- god.

20. Describe the background to the kalam cosmological argument

  • Developed by 11th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali and updated by 20th century Christian philosopher William lane Craig. It argues from the existence of the universe to the existence of god.
  • Developed by 11th century jewish scholastic al ghazali and updated by 20th century Christian philosopher William lane Craig. It argues from the existence of the universe to the existence of god.
  • Developed by 9th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali and updated by 20th century Christian philosopher William lane Craig. It argues from the existence of the universe to the existence of god.
  • Developed by 11th century hindu scholastic al ghazali and updated by 20th century Christian philosopher William lane Craig. It argues from the existence of the universe to the existence of god.