solved From the following twelve questions, you will be asked to

From the following twelve questions, you will be asked to answer ONE from each part, for a total of five. Give equal attention to each question; a more substantial answer to one question does not make up for a less adequate answer to another. You may answer one or both of the optional questions, but you need not, and they will be weighed less than the required questions. Do your own work and do not just paste in from (or lightly revise) other sources, including lecture notes. We use “SafeAssign” to test for plagiarism, for which we have zero tolerance. Part One 1.Explain Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Critically evaluate the argument. Does it establish that God exists? Explain your view. 2. Lay out the Cosmological Argument. What is the most significant objection to it? Evaluate the Argument in light of this objection. Does the argument succeed? Explain your answer. 3. Explain the Design Argument. What is the most significant objection to it? Evaluate the argument in light of this objection. What is the idea behind Intelligent Design and does it successfully defend the Design Argument? 4. Are there good “pragmatic” reasons to believe in God? Discuss Pascal’s Wager in this context: what is the pragmatic argument for the existence of God that is based on Pascal’s Wager? Discuss the most pressing objection or objections to this argument and evaluate these objections. Are they successful? Explain your answer. Part Two 5. What is the Problem of Evil? What is the Free Will Defense to the Problem of Evil? How well does it account for the evils we find in the world? Are there ways of supplementing the Free Will Defense in order to provide a more compelling theodicy? Defend your answer (either positive or negative). 6. What considerations do Louise Anthony present to explain and justify her loss of her Christian faith (and her subsequent atheism)? Do you agree or disagree with the claim that they establish atheism? Explain your answer. Part Three 7. What does “Cogito ergo sum” mean, and what role does this claim play in Descartes’ refutation of skepticism about our knowledge of the external world? Descartes builds on this insight to provide a fuller refutation of such skepticism by invoking God’s existence. How does Descartes use God’s existence in his argument against skepticism about our knowledge of the external world? Is the argument persuasive? Why or why not? 8. What is Frankfurt’s account of “bullshit?” According to him, what is the difference between lying and bullshitting? Also, according to Frankfurt, why is bullshit so prevalent, and so dangerous? Give an example of bullshit either from your personal life or contemporary politics and explain why it is disturbing. Part Four 9. What is the problem of personal identity over time? Why does it matter? (That is, what is at stake in the question of personal identity over time?) What is the most plausible answer to the question of what makes a particular person the same over time? Evaluate this criterion of personal identity in light of at least one significant objection. 10. Explain the Turing Test. What is it supposed to be a “test” of? How is Searle’s Chinese Room Thought-Experiment relevant to the Turing Test? What does Searle conclude from his thought-experiment? Critically evaluate Searle’s conclusions. Do you think computers of the future could (in principle) “think”? Why or why not? Part Five 11. What is it about Sisyphus’ life (once he is required to roll the rock up and down the hill) that makes it absurd? Does it have to be meaningless? What elements would we have to add to the story to make it a meaningful existence? How are our lives similar to Sisyphus’ life (during the rock-rolling period)? How are they different, if they are? 12. Assume that death is the permanent cessation of existence and an experiential blank. Could death (on these assumptions) be bad for the individual who dies? Start by laying out Nagel’s answer to this question and critically evaluate the main problems for Nagel’s view. Do you agree or disagree with Nagel?