HELP: UofC PHILO 201 Paper

[Gondi Stylez]

This is for a friend of mine that has absolutly no idea what to write about for his paper!! anybody that can help him out or has taken this course and knows what is going on!

This is at UofC PHILO 201, Prof - Norm Gall

OK, now the questions:

1) What is the problem of evil? Give two 'solutions' and argue which is more acceptable

2) The Ontological and the Cosmological arguments both surport to establish the existence of God. Of the two, which is most compelling and why?

Thanx in advance!!

[RSeXy]

i'm sure girlRACER can help you out with the latter....

damn! phil201 has gotten a lot harder since I was in it.

[roopi]

Google is your friend. You would be amazed at what you find and you will be even more amazed at how many profs through different universities use the exact same assignments. The funny thing is if you are smart enough it is even easier to find the solutions to the assignments since most profs have them online. There are usually not links to them but if you backtrack through directories they are all there.

So anyways for a start goto www.google.com and enter the following in 2 seperate searchs. Enter them exactly with the quotation marks and you will find tons of help. You might not find the answer but you will find so much great material...

Search 1: "What is the problem of evil"

Search 2: The Ontological and the Cosmological arguments + God

On the second search the first few hits will be essay sites. I suggest that your friend skip these since they are usually crappy and its not worth the risk of getting busted. Maybe read them for some ideas but thats it.

Hope this helps

[Gondi Stylez]

thanx so far!! girlracer where are you?!?!?!?! haha

[thich]

wow... when i did 201 i didn't have to write such complicated essays... that sounds like it'll take some time to write up

[Weapon_R]

I remember all we had to do for 201 was compare the two philosophers (ie Decartes and Locke) and that's it - such an easy A! Now all this talk about evil and such is crazy haha

[thich]

yeah that's what i did when i took 201 with Grant 2 years ago

[girlRACER]

:D....oooh I like this kinda stuff. Gets my brain working :nut:

Since my knowledge is mostly in eastern tradition I will use eastern philosophy rather than western/greek philosophy to approach this question. (evil could also be approached from a religious perspective but since you are in a philosophy course its probably more appropriate to use eastern philosophy)

1) What are the problems of evil?? At the root level, eastern philosophers were mostly concerned with 2 problems:

a) Are people born evil? Is it part of their nature?

OR

b) Are people born good but were corrupted by society?

Each of these arguments were debated by 2 people: Mencius&Confucius, and Xunzi.

Both Mencius and Confucius thought that humans were good by nature. They believed that heaven had a moral will and virtuous qualities and that human beings shared those qualities because the individual was seen as a microcosm of heaven.

It was argued that society, and not the individual corrupted human nature. Evil occurs because human nature takes the path which is of least resistant (the easier path). Thus through external forces, human nature can be made to do things against its nature.

Mencius believed that the solution to fixing corruption and evil in society was education. Because human nature was believed to be good, education was needed to cultivate virtue (like seedlings that needed water).

Xunzi (lived during the period of the warring states) believed that humans were born with conflict. He believed that humans tend to be selfish, greedy and driven by passion. Thus, suffering was a product of the evil human nature. He believed that if humans were left to themselves then there would be violence and corruption. He used the example of the king; a king only does everything to protect his wealth and status.

Ironically, Xunzi proposed the same solution as Mencius and Confucius. He also believed that education should be used to subdue passion and to control human nature. He believed that without society, law, threat of force or conformity, that people would follow their passionate side.

Thus this creates a model:

Educated people were capable of making voluntary and active decisions. Non-educated people acted involuntary and on instinct because it was part of their nature.

As to whether view a) or b) is acceptable it is of course all personal opinion. I'm quite unbiased.

I hope this helps :)

[eur0]

Im taking philosophy 279 - formal logic right now, ugh :thumbsdow

[girlRACER]

Question 2)

I can't believe they're making your friend write this kind of paper for a 200-level course :eek: I had to think about this for a long time :(

The only thing I can think of is the Christian vs Science debate for the existence of god.

Cosmological argument (study of the physical universe):

A man named Paley wrote a book called "Natural Theology."
Natural Theology is when nature is studied to prove for the existence of God. According to him, nature had an intelligent designer because of its complex composition. For example, it was argued that the development of the human eye which was so well-suited to the environment could not have been a coincidence or random. It was part of a designed order, and not random and the designer was God.

Paley's works were based on Darwin. Basically, this argument accepts evolution but in the view that God has planned this designed order from the beginning and that it was not coincidental.

Ontological argument (deals with the nature of being):
A man by the name of Langdon Gilkey wrote "Nature, Reality and the Sacred."

Obviously people who support the existence of God receive their knowledge from the Bible which they believe is the divine revealed word of God. This is a matter of faith and because people who support the existence of God do not need to validate that claim to each other their defense and arguments for the existence of God are directed to "outsiders" and especially scientists who discredit that belief.

The Christian response is that science cannot prove that the nature of God does not exist thus proving the inadequacy of science and further supporting the existence of God.

Christians have criticized the methods of science. They claim that science cannot prove whether God exists or not because that is out of the jurisdiction of science. In fact, science is limited because if it possessed all knowledge of reality then it could predict the future or have knowledge of things extending out into space. It is simply a perspective. Because science attempts to explain these questions (which are philosophical questions) it is relying on "extra-scientific" modes of knowing and is not even science anymore (the term philosophy of science was coined to refer to this perspective). In fact, scientific truth is only true so far as it is not discredited by new discoveries.

Therefore, Science is flawed and cannot prove for the existence of God thus validating the Christian claim that God does exist.

hehe...I side with the religious/Christian view on this one. :)

[mwmhong]

Originally posted by Gondi Stylez
2) The Ontological and the Cosmological arguments both surport to establish the existence of God. Of the two, which is most compelling and why?

Thanx in advance!!

I have taken Philosophy of Religion (PHIL 319) but I forgot alot of it. I haven't taken this crap in many years, so bear with me.

The Ontological argument:

This goes something along the lines of "God is a being so perfect that nothing greater can be conceived."

Then one is supposed to understand that "well, if I only believe in something in my mind, then it would be greater if it existed."

So for example: a 10000000 HP Ferarri is a great car to daydream about, but it would be greater to actually have one exist. So, something actually existing is greater than something that is merely in ones mind.

Therefore, in order for God to be this being that is 'so perfect that nothing greater can be conceived', he MUST exist. If God is merely in our minds, then something greater can be conceived (that he exists) which is CONTRARY to the definition of God.
Therefore, God must exist, so that nothing greater can be conceived, which would violate the very definition of God. :bullshit: :bullshit:


The Cosmological argument:

Basically says that there must be some cause to bring about all things that ever existed in the universe and the universe itself(space, time, earth, stars, trees, people, etc). Now supposedly there cannot be an infinite number of causes, there has to be some big cause which brought about all the subsequent causes. This big cause, which itself/himself does not have a cause is supposed to be God. Nothing caused Him, but somehow he is the cause/creator of all the universe. :bullshit:

In my own forgetful opinion, I would pick the Cosmological argument as most compelling, but they are both flawed.
There are logical arguments laid out with premises and conclusions for each of these views, but you'll have to look them up yourself.

[Gondi Stylez]

thanx alot guys, girlracer and mwmhong you guys are awsome!! ill give this info to my friend tonight when he comes over and i guess will see what he comes up with! again thanx alot and ill post any more questions if he has any about the information provided!!

hopefully my ethics/bio ethics isnt at all like this?!?! actually any of you taken that?

[RSeXy]

wow Jackie! I should've specialized in Eastern Church History. I am struggling with the Beguine Monks (which i have to write a 20 pg rpt along with an half hour presentation!) and St. Benedict of Nursia's "Regula"

dammit.

[max_boost]

And this is why I hated University! Having to write essays on irrelevant insights into the history and theories on the establishment of mankind! Pfff!!! haha

[girlRACER]

Originally posted by max_boost
And this is why I hated University! Having to write essays on irrelevant insights into the history and theories on the establishment of mankind! Pfff!!! haha

How is it irrelevant? :dunno: I am offended. My whole degree is based on historical research, insights and theories. That's what scholarship is and it isn't "irrelevant." I think that's an ignorant statement.

RSexy - What a hard subject!! 20 pages! :eek: :nut:

[RSeXy]

Originally posted by max_boost
And this is why I hated University! Having to write essays on irrelevant insights into the history and theories on the establishment of mankind! Pfff!!! haha

what! irrelevant?? that is what you were telling me two mins ago on the phone too! arrgh! it isn't irrelevant...in your perfect world all ancient documents would be burned. but how would man-kind make any progress without the innovations and thought processes of the past?? even your business degree depends on ancient thought...adam smith?? also, another intended goal of research and essay writing is honing on important skills of information recovery and interpretation to apply in today's working world.

anyways, you are editing my paper on Montesquieu at this very moment! i look forward to reading it! :thumbsup:

yeah, 20 pages on the Beguine monks sux0rz!

[max_boost]

No wonder money isn't the root of all evil, religion is! haha

It's irrelevant to me because I have no interest in it. And congrats to you for devoting your life to something you believe in.

[girlRACER]

Originally posted by RSeXy


what! irrelevant?? that is what you were telling me two mins ago on the phone too! arrgh! it isn't irrelevant...in your perfect world all ancient documents would be burned. but how would man-kind make any progress without the innovations and thought processes of the past?? even your business degree depends on ancient thought...adam smith?? also, another intended goal of research and essay writing is honing on important skills of information recovery and interpretation to apply in today's working world.

anyways, you are editing my paper on Montesquieu at this very moment! i look forward to reading it! :thumbsup:

yeah, 20 pages on the Beguine monks sux0rz!

:thumbsup: Well put! I couldn't have said it better.

[max_boost]

Oh, I thought I got owned.....:) hehe

[CRXguy]

:nut: :zzz: