Busy. Please wait.

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 

show password


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.

By signing up, I agree to StudyStack's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the email address associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove ads
Don't know (0)
Know (0)
remaining cards (0)
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
restart all cards

Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

Religion Philosophy

who first put forth the ontological argument? Anselm-God has to exist in reality since he can’t be the greatest when only existing in the mind.
what is a reductio ad absurdum? Producing a counter argument and making the other argument sound absurd by REDUCTION. Anselm's argument is reduction and absurdum
the concepts of necessary and contingent? How do they figure into the argument? Contingent is multiple outcomes. Necessary is like a forced law (2+2=4)
what is Guanilo's objection to Anselm's argument? The perfect island. If the perfect island is in the mind, then it exists because existing is it’s greatest form. Anselm’s and Guanilo’s arguments are the same but Guanilo made his sound more absurd to counter Anselm.
how does Anselm refer to God? “Something than which nothing greater can be thought”
what does the ontological argument purport to prove? The ontological argument attempts to prove that God exists.
Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument 1. G's possibly exists. 2. If it is possible, then He exists in some possible world. 3. If God exists in some possible world, then He exists in every possible world, 4. If He exists in every possible world, He must exist in the actual world.
Anselm’s version of the cosmological argument (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe exists. (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God. (5) God exists.
causation can be about two things. what are they? Explained by another (prior cause of event). Explained by itself (self-explanatory).
what is the Principle of Sufficient Reason? everything must have a reason or cause
Kalam cosmological argument (from Craig) 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, a cause exists
What's Hilbert's hotel, and what is that example supposed to show? Hilbert’s hotel is an infinite number of rooms. It shows 1 plus infinity will always be infinity. If we had infinite evidence, there still wouldn’t be an explanation for God.
how does the big-bang model support the Kalam argument given by Craig? It was a cause that created many other things like the universe.
Paley's Analogical Teleological Argument 1.Human artifacts are products of intelligent design 2.Universe is like Artifacts 3. It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design 4.However, the universe more complicated than a human artifact is. 5. There is probably a creator.
what attributes of God, if any, are purportedly established with the design argument? Intelligent designer, The first mover
Objections to the Teleological argument given by Hume God would have to make a perfect world but the world has evil. There’s no evidence that the world had need to be created by a designer. It could exist naturally. There’s no evidence that suggests that the universe was something other than pure chan
the logical problem of evil (1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful). (2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing). (3) God is perfectly good. (4) Evil exists. (5) An all-powerful, all-knowing being would not allow evil to occur (6) Since evil exists, God doesn’t
what is the difference between the logical problem and the evidential/probabilistic argument? Do they try to prove different things? Logical problems try to wholly make you believe one side. Probabilistic arguments try to sway your view.
what is the difference between a theodicy and a defense? What does Plantinga offer? Theodicy makes God’s existence probable and justifies God’s actions. Defense says that God’s existence is an absolute fact. Platinga offers the “Free Will Defense” which is a Defense argument states that God created us to choose with our free will.
free will defense Evil exists and so does God. God gave us the free will to choose to do acts of good and evil. We have our own consequences.
according to Plantinga, can God create any possible world he chooses? No. God cannot create a world containing moral good without it also containing moral evil.
what is Rowe's example of a burning fawn supposed to show? Rowe suggests that God doesn’t exist because he would prevent meaningless evils that yield nothing.
draw a diagram modeling Classical Foundationalism EVIDENTIALIST OBJECTION and NATURAL THEOLOGY rests on Classical Foundationalism. PLANTINGA'S REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGY rejects Classical Foundationalism.
Plantinga's objection to Classical Foundationalism Classic foundationalism is basic in the way it states that you are justified in believing something based off of memory. Contradicts itself. Plantinga created the Reformed Epistemology which states that believing in God is properly basic.
Draw a chart for Pascal's Wager Believe Don't Believe God is real WIN LOSE God is fake LOSE LOSE
Give an objection to Pascal’s Wager It is possible to prove that God does not exist According to the Bible, more is required than just belief in God. BELIEF IS NOT SUBJECT TO WILL
Does Clifford think that we can choose our beliefs? It is wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence.
does Clifford think the connection between belief and evidence should be? Belief should be based on sufficient evidence or it is a sin as we are making ourselves easy targets and will harm others upon our poorly supported beliefs.
Be familiar with James notions of option, live option, forced option, and momentous option Living: Both live options (given two choices like being agnostic or Christian) Forced: An option you can’t avoid or be indifferent to. (Either stay or go) Momentous: An option that is huge and life-changing (Going on a polar expedition)
differences between the descriptive question and the normative question Descriptive Ethics: the study of people’s beliefs about morality. Normative ethics: Study of ethical theories and how people OUGHT to act. The norm.
Does Alston think one is justified in forming beliefs on the basis of one’s religious experience? If so, why? He believes that people are justified in their beliefs if they maximize truth and minimize falsehood. The belief must be on adequate ground.
Created by: Chelseagirl2508