Study Guide for the Final Exam
1. Be able to articulate the three central positions (theist, agnostic, atheist) by appeal to what each of them believes with respect to the following claims.
If someone doesn't believe that God exists, is that person an atheist? Why or Why not?
2. Be able to define and answer scantron questions about the following terms: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and necessary existent.
3. Be able to state and answer scantron questions about principle G.
4. We briefly discussed Pascal's Argument for the Existence of God. Be able to define and answer scantron questions about good reasons1 to believe some proposition and good reasons2 to believe some proposition.
5. Be able to define and answer scantron questions about the following terms: contingent, non-contingent, world (as defined by Leibniz), x is independent of y, x is a sufficient reason for y, God (as defined by St. Anselm), x exists in reality, x exists in the intellect, natural evils.
6. Be able to state and answer scantron questions about the Principle of Sufficient Reason and St. Anselm's Ontological Axiom.
7. Be able to PEE the following arguments (Recall that in order to PEE any argument, you must define all technical terms in the argument, provide rationales for the premises, and then be able to evaluate the argument from perhaps various perspectives. See the Step-by-Step Instructions on How to PEE handout for assistance.):
The Argument from Love
- Be able to provide a robust rationale for premise (3).
- Note that there are three possible interpretations of this argument. According to the first interpretation: theists, agnostics, and atheists all believe the argument to be sound. But if there isn't tension between the views, then it becomes obvious that this first interpretation of the argument isn't relevant to our pursuit of answers to the fundamental questions of philosophical theology. The second interpretation commits the fallacy of equivocation by assigning an interpretation to the word 'God' in premise (3) that is different from the interpretation assigned to the word 'God' in the conclusion. The second interpretation, thus, renders the arguments invalid and unworthy of our attention. Agnostics and atheists reject the non-trivial, non-equivocating, third interpretation as unsound. Which premise do they reject? Why?
The First Cosmological Argument Inspired by St. Tom's Five Ways
- Be able to provide a rationale for each of the premises.
- The argument is valid, but is it sound? Be able to present a criticism of this argument that is not based upon a rejection of premise (6).
The Second Cosmological Argument Inspired by St. Tom's Five Ways
- Be able to provide a rationale for each of the premises.
- The argument is valid, but is it sound? Be able to present a criticism of this argument that is not based upon a rejection of premise (6).
The Third Cosmological Argument Inspired by St. Tom's Five Ways
- Be able to provide a rationale for each of the premises.
- Be able to present a substantial objection to premise (5) (Leibniz's objection).
- Be able to present the deist's objection to premise (6).
Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
- Be able to provide rationales for the premises.
- Be able to present objections against premises (2), and (3).
St. Anselm's Ontological Argument
- Be able to provide a rationale for each of the premises.
- Be able to present an objection against one of the premises in both Anselm's and Gaunilo's arguments.
Problem of Evil (Version 1)
- Be able to provide a substantial rationale for each of the premises.
- Be able to present an objection against the argument based on the Free Will Defense (Ultimate Questions: 207; Evil and Omnipotence: 126).
- Which premise would an adherent of the free will defense reject?
- Evaluate the objection.
Problem of Evil (Version 2)
- Be able to provide rationales for premises (3) and (4) of this version of the Problem of Evil.
- Be able to evaluate the argument. Is it valid? What form is it in? Is it sound? If you find this second version of the argument unsound, you will be required to pick a premise and state an objection against it.
Problem of Evil (Version 3)
- Be able to provide rationales for premises (3) and (4) of this version of the Problem of Evil.
- Be able to evaluate the argument. Is it valid? What form is it in? Is it sound? If you find this third version of the argument unsound, you will be required to pick a premise and state an objection against it.