Philosophy Exam 2 (Set 4) Med. 3

Front 1

Proof of God's Existence P1

Back 1

Since my ideas like that of infinity and perfection did not come to me via my senses or my imagination, they must be innate.
(How does he know they're noe from his senses? Because you can't really experience infinity or perfection. All the experience I have can't really generate the PERFECT triangle. Now he thinks about how did I get these beliefs. If they're from an evil demon they're no good.)

Front 2

Proof of God's Existence P2

Back 2

The reality principle=there must be at least as much formal reality in a cause as in its effect.
(He again thinks there are different degrees of reality as Anselm did. He says formal reality. Minds are infinite
other things are finite.
Bodies have the least amount of formal reality. If you're a being producing other beings cannot create anything with more formal reality than yourself.

Front 3

Reality principle

Back 3

There must be at least as much formal reality in a cause as in its effect.
He again thinks there are different degrees of reality as Anselm did. He says formal reality. Minds are infinite
other things are finite.
Bodies have the least amount of formal reality. If you're a being producing other beings cannot create anything with more formal reality than yourself.

Front 4

Objective reality

Back 4

Idea of infinite mind is greater because infinite minds have more
Ideas of finite minds have formal reality and more objective reality than ideas of bodies.
Objective means representational. It changes because what they're representing. This principe tells him he cannot be the cause of his ideas.

Front 5

Proof of God's Existence P3

Back 5

I could not be the cause of my ideas of infinity and perfection because I do not have enough formal reality.
(When we think of this in order for us to create this idea I'd have to be an infinite perfect reality. If I have a perfect idea we'd have to be perfect. The best I can do is have you think of something finite. CAnnot give you ideas outside of your formal reality.)

Front 6

Proof of God's existence 4

Back 6

Because of the reality principle these innate ideas must have a source that is actually infinite and perfect.

Front 7

Proof of God's existence 5

Back 7

The definition of God is an infinite perfect being

Front 8

Proof of God's existence Conclusion

Back 8

Thus, God exists. Namely, there does exist an infinite perfect being

Front 9

Why couldn't we have created certain things?

Back 9

You can't create certain things because only something infinite and perfect could have created it. This is what God is by definition. We have to get God and not a deceiver.

Front 10

What's the problem with thinking we create the idea of infinity?

Back 10

If representing infinity the infinity has more formal reality than our finite mind. Some thing that's infinite can produce any idea in my mind. You, only having a finite mind cannot generate an infinite idea. They say if you can't experience it, it must have come from God. We couldn't get the idea s if God didn't exist. If you beleve this difference in reality then there's no other possible answer. If you believe the premises true then there is no other conclusion.

Front 11

What does the fact that we have the idea of reality prove?

Back 11

We have the idea of reality which is an idea which we cannot generate because of our finite mind. But we do have these ideas so God must have given them to us. So god must exist.

Front 12

How do we prove P5 that the definition of God is a perfect being? Point 7

Back 12

Because God is perfect, God would neither deceive me nor would he permit me to err without giving me a way to correct my errors.
(He now thinks he can believe anything he perceives as clear and distinct. He thinks something that is perfect cannot be evil or deceiptful. Anything that would deceive me would have to be malicious. God isn't malicious so he shouldn't be that way. He says perfection is perfection of the good things. It seems like we need proof but he thinks this is obviously true.)

Front 13

How do we prove P5 that the definition of God is a perfect being? Point 8

Back 13

I am not being deceived by an evil demon.
(This follows from steps 5, 6, and 7)
(If god exists and if not a deceiver, then no evil demon. God exists b.c God's perfect he is not a deceiver. Therefore there is no evil demon.)

Front 14

How do we prove P5 that the definition of God is a perfect being? Point 9

Back 14

Clear and distinct propositions are true regardless of whether I am giving them my full attention or not.
(IF we know we're not being deceived, we know we can go back to the clear and distinct rule and strengthen this. They are not true because there is no evil demon. Now we know a priori things are true).

Front 15

What does Descartes say about the fact that we can make errors and be deceived?

Back 15

He says God doesn't cause these deceptions. WE are deceived by our senses. But we address this in P 7. God gives us the ability to correct our errors. We can work around our sensory errors. Maybe the first time something happens you ask somebody else did you see that? WE can always check to see if our error is correct.

Front 16

What is the issue with the reality principle?

Back 16

The reality principle says there must be as much reality in a cause as in its effect. THerefore, if it's only finite cannot cause an infinite idea. To get this you have to appeal to the clear and distinct rule. But right now it's subjective until God's existence is sured up.

Front 17

Cartesian circle

Back 17

People charge Descartes of reasoning in a circle. But you want your reasoning to be top down not circle around. Example:
P1. Picasso was one of the greatest artists
P2. B/c the art critics say so.
P3 The proof is thoise who say Picasso is the greatest.

Front 18

What cartesian circle does Descartes work himself into

Back 18

We get the clear and distinct rule because God exists. We get God's existence from the discussion of the reality principle. We're trying to get something that gives us objective truth so we develop the reality principle. Only way we use reality principle is through clear and distinct. WE want this to be true but it's subjective. This causes a circle.

Front 19

What can we say finally that allows deductive argumentation to be put back on the table?

Back 19

HE says if somethig is clear and distinct then we know the conclusions are true. Now I can use deductive reasoning because I know the arguments are clear and distinct.

Front 20

How do A posteriori premises be put bakc on the table?

Back 20

The a posterioiri get put back on the table. Many people think he cannot get out of the vicious circle if this doesn't happen he commits a fallacy and the evil demon argumkent is still on the table.