Phil 1301 Introduction To Philosophy Kingwood Fall 2016

Phil 1301 Introduction To Philosophylsc Kingwoodfall 2016instructor

Phil 1301 – Introduction to Philosophy LSC Kingwood Fall 2016 Instructor: Michael Zalkaske Paper #1 Instructions: The first paper will be on material we have covered from Part One of the text: “Reason and Religious Belief.” Choose an argument (Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, the Problem of Evil, etc.) and explain why you think it is right or wrong. You do not need to use outside sources, but you must use material from the text to back up your choice. Begin by summarizing your chosen argument, explain why you think it is right or wrong, describe possible objections to your position, and respond to these objections. Be sure not to misrepresent opposing views and try to remain logical throughout.

It is more important to show your thought process with a degree of objectivity than to try to “win” the argument. Paper Length: At least 3 FULL pages, double spaced, 12 point Times New Roman font, one inch margins. Due Date: October 3rd, in class. Each day it is late will drop your grade by one letter. Title ABC/123 Version X 1 Leadership Theory Matrix LDR/300 Version University of Phoenix Material Leadership Theory Matrix Complete the Leadership Theory Matrix by providing a detailed description and an example or examples.

See the Example provided in the first row. Note. Answers shown in red are provided for example purposes only. Theory Focus Theory Description Example(s) Heroic or charismatic leaders. “Great man” theories. The capacity for leadership is inherent. These theories held the underlying concept that great leaders are born, not made (Northouse, 2014) Based on the study of people who were great leaders in history “focused on identifying innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders (Northouse, p 19) and making assumptions about all based on a few. Personality characteristics otherwise known as “trait theories” Focuses on skills and abilities that can be learned and developed “skills” approach Emphasis is the behavior of the leader, known as “style” approach Focuses on leadership in situations or “situational” leadership theories. Leader–match theories look at how well the leader’s style fits the context known as “Contingency” theory References Northouse, P.G (2013). Leadership Theory & Practice (6th Ed.) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paper For Above instruction

The early development of arguments concerning the existence and nature of God has been a central focus in philosophy, particularly within the context of the various classical proofs of God's existence. Among these, the Ontological Argument, originally formulated by Saint Anselm in the 11th century, stands out as a profound philosophical attempt to demonstrate God's existence solely through reason and logic. This argument hinges on the idea that if we can conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, then that being must exist in reality, because existence in reality is greater than existence solely in the mind.

In summary, the Ontological Argument posits that the very concept of a greatest being—God—implies its existence. Anselm's formulation suggests that it is logically necessary for such a being to exist, as non-existence would contradict the notion of greatness. Critics, such as Immanuel Kant, have challenged this reasoning, arguing that existence is not a predicate or a quality that makes a being greater. Kant maintained that asserting that God exists merely affirms the logical coherence of the concept, but does not establish actual existence.

Assessing the validity of the Ontological Argument requires examining both its logical structure and its philosophical implications. I believe that the argument, as originally presented, faces significant challenges because it relies heavily on defining God as the greatest conceivable being. While appealing in its elegance, it ultimately presupposes that conceptual analysis alone can substantiate the existence of a divine being, which I find problematic. The primary reason for my skepticism is that existence is not a predicate that enhances the greatness of a being, as Kant argued, but rather a necessary condition for actualization. Therefore, reasoning from the concept alone does not suffice to prove God's existence.

However, some responses attempt to modify or reinforce the argument by distinguishing between different senses of existence or appealing to modal logic. For example, Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological Argument employs possible worlds to argue that if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then such a being necessarily exists in all possible worlds. This approach seeks to sidestep Kant's critique by framing existence as a necessary attribute once its possibility is established. Nonetheless, critics argue that this version, too, presupposes certain premises about modal logic and the nature of possibility that remain contentious.

Possible objections to the acceptance of the Ontological Argument include the notion that it conflates conceptual coherence with real existence, and that it relies on a questionable premise that existence can be deduced from logical analysis alone. Responding to these objections, proponents maintain that the argument offers a unique a priori proof of God's existence and that it processually demonstrates that God's existence is logically necessary, given the definition of God. Moreover, philosophical debates continue over whether existence should be treated as a predicate or a property, and whether the argument’s use of modal logic is valid or flawed.

In conclusion, while the Ontological Argument is a fascinating and logically elegant philosophical construct, I find the objections raised by critics like Kant compelling. The reliance on defining God as the greatest being and the assumption that existence is a predicate make the argument less convincing in my view. Nonetheless, the argument is undeniably influential and serves as a vital example of how reason and logic can be employed in theological and metaphysical debates. Ultimately, I think the ontological reasoning, while insightful, cannot alone prove the existence of God without further empirical or evidential support.

References

• Anselm, Saint. (1078/1998). Proslogion. Trans. M. J. Charlesworth. University of Toronto Press.
• Kant, Immanuel. (1781/1998). Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. P. Guyer & A. W. Wood.
• Plantinga, Alvin. (1974). The Modal Ontological Argument. In The Nature of Necessity. Clarendon Press.
• Hick, John. (1973). An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent. Harper & Row.
• Ross, David. (2002). The Philosophy of Religion. Routledge.
• Craig, William Lane. (1979). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Wipf and Stock.
• Oppy, Graham. (2011). Arguing about Gods. Cambridge University Press.
• Rea, Michael. (1998). The Evidence for God. Cambridge University Press.
• Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Clarendon Press.
• Alston, William P. (1990). Perceiving God. Cornell University Press.