Please pick one of the following questions to answer for the forum this week:

• With reference to Pike’s article, how could it be said that Divine Omniscience challenges the idea that humans have free will?
• With reference to Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his argument as well as his response to Gaunilo.
• Evaluate Aquinas’ argument(s) for God’s existence from efficient causality and/or from motion and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.

Discussion Guidelines

• Three posts minimum.
• The initial forum response is due by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. EST and should be a substantive response to the Discussion prompt.
• For peer replies, respond to at least two of your classmates by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. EST and give meaningful replies that advance the Discussion.

Before you post, please thoroughly edit your writing to ensure it is professional and academic. For more details about how the initial post and peer replies are graded, see and the linked .

This Discussion aligns with the following:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion V.4 Rubric [APR 2025]

reply to:

Week 5 Landon Morris

• Contains unread posts
• Landon Morris posted Feb 3, 2026 7:30 PM
• In the article Divine Omniscience, it states “, God cannot in anything be mistaken” which is takes as, if God believes something will happen then it is set in stone and cannot change. It is also considered that the “essence” of God is omniscient which means that God is never wrong and knows what is to happen before it happens. This clearly challenges the idea that humans have free will. If we were to actually have free will then the future could always change at any given moment. This idea shows that we may think we have free will, but in reality, our entire lives has already been set and all we can do is just live through what has been given to us. In divine omniscience it also states “This is to say that any person who is not omniscient could not be the person we usually mean to be referring to when using the name God”. In other words, if you believe that your “God” is all powerful and any other typical traits of what someone would consider a “God” if they are not omniscient then they are not truly a “God”.
• 2 Unread
• 2
• Unread
• 2 Replies
• 2
• Replies
• 2 Views
• 2
• Views
• View profile card for ENGIE LAGROW
• Last post 5 hours ago by ENGIE LAGROW

ENGIE LAGROW WEEK 5 DISCUSSION

• Contains unread posts
• ENGIE LAGROW posted Feb 3, 2026 10:01 PM
• Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God has the same mindset as what we spoke about last week with Leibniz because they both believe in “priori”. They both have a rationalist, preloaded belief. In Anselm’s Ontological argument, he argues that the very concept of God proves his existence, and that there is no greater. Anselm defines God as “than than which nothing is greater can be conceived”, meaning we can conceive of a being that is the greatest possible thing (God). He sees it as, existing in reality is better than not existing at all or existing in the mind. The argument relies on reason or the rationalist mindset vs experience or the empiricism belief.
• The strengths of his argument in my opinion is, as mentioned in the reading material when he argues “existence must also be thought of as pure perfection since a being that exists is obviously greater than one that does not exist and since it is unqualifiedly better to be than not to be. Therefore, for a greatest-possible being not to exist would contradict the very idea of a greatest possible being, i.e. thinking of God as non-existent is not to think about ‘God’ in the strict sense at all.” This logical thought is what drives the argument. The logic and certainty of, if we do not believe in God, then we would be not believing we exist, it is contradicting. Another strength is that it matches the perfect view of God and emphasizes his perfection. It is more than just believing in something that created us but believing in perfection.
• The weakness is simply what Gaunilo mentioned in his argument. Gaunilo saw Anselm’s argument like pulling a bunny out of a magician hat. He doesn’t think that just because we imagine something, all of a sudden it exists. Basically we cannot just say something “exists” and all of a sudden it is 100% true. That is what he argued, saying it is true JUST solely because “it exists” is like saying unicorns, fairies, and vampires exist. Gaunilo mentioned, at that point say anything mythical exists. It truly could be seen as slippery slope reasoning. THAT is the weakness, and that is exactly the weakness that Gaunilo talked about, as to why he does not necessarily disagree that God exists just not fully agreeing with Anslem’s reasoning.

Write a four- to five-page paper (not including cover and reference pages) that responds to the following prompt: You are getting settled into your seat for a very long plane ride home. As you get to know the person next to you, you learn that they are a devout atheist who believes that God is a myth that people have invented to make them feel better. After listening carefully to why this person does not believe in God, you have an opportunity to explain why you do believe in God. What would you say? In your response, address objective evidence to support your faith in God and back up this evidence with solid, academic sources. Your paper should explain why it is more logical to believe in theism (“God exists”) rather than in atheism (“God does not exist”). Select one argument (and only one argument) for the existence of God, and then provide a depth of analysis on that single argument. Be sure to address the following questions in your paper: Why do you believe God exists? What are your logic-based reasons? If your personal testimony never occurred, or before your personal experience happened, were there logical reasons to believe in the existence of God? If you need assistance in developing your argument, the following resources may help: Video: PHL-205A Session 3 The Argument from Design: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe (6:23) Website: The First Cause Argument Website: The Argument from Conscience Website: The Argument from Morality Website: The Argument from Desire You must share some objective evidence to support your belief in God’s existence and back up this objective evidence with solid, academic sources. Objective evidence means logic and data. For this philosophy course, your paper should not try to prove the validity nor historicity of the Bible but instead present the philosophical logic for the existence of God. Logical thinking skills must be demonstrated in contrast to merely sharing stories, experiences, or emotions. The vast majority of your paper should primarily focus on presenting an argument for the existence of God, rather than focus on responding to objections against the existence of God. Again, present with depth a logical argument and then defend it. To defend and analyze an argument means to answer Yes to these questions and give an explanation: Are the key terms clear? Are the premises true? Is the conclusion logical? After the first half-page, the paper should not (a) share personal testimonies, or (b) share subjective experiences, or (c) merely quote the Bible as supernatural revelation, which an atheist would not consider authoritative. Incorporate at least six references total. These may be from the reading assignments, additional research material, class lectures, and personal observations into your paper, two must come from outside research materials. Use APA formatting and be sure to properly source and cite all references. Refer to the APA & Turabian Requirements. If AI is detected, academic suspension will occur.

Discussion Post 1: Morality, Moral Reasoning, and Moral Skepticism

Weeks Covered: 13

Instructions

This discussion integrates Weeks 13 of the course:

• What is morality?
• How moral reasoning works
• Whether morality can be challenged by moral skepticism

Your task is not to summarize the readings, but to explain and evaluate ideas clearly and thoughtfully using concepts from the course.

Part 1 Original Post (Minimum 300 words)

Address all three sections below:

1. What is morality?
2. Explain what philosophers mean by morality. In your explanation, clarify whether morality is primarily about rules, reasons, character, social expectations, or something else. Be precise.
3. Moral reasoning
4. Explain how moral reasoning helps us decide what is right or wrong. Use one concrete example (a real-life or hypothetical case) to show how moral reasoning works in practice.
5. Moral skepticism
6. Briefly explain one skeptical challenge to morality discussed in Week 3. Then assess it:

• Is this challenge convincing?
• Why or why not?

Your post should demonstrate understanding of the readings and lectures while clearly explaining ideas in your own words.

Part 2 Replies to Classmates

Respond substantively to at least two classmates.

Each reply should:

• Engage with the ideas, not just agree or disagree
• Ask a question, raise a concern, or extend their reasoning
• Be at least 100 words each

Short comments such as I agree or Good post will not receive credit.

Writing Expectations

• Write clearly and in complete sentences
• Use philosophical terms accurately
• Aim for explanation and evaluation, not summary

B. Discussion Post 1 Rubric (100 Points Total)

Use four criteria. This keeps grading fast and transparent.

Criterion 1: Conceptual Understanding (30 points)

Understanding of morality, moral reasoning, and moral skepticism

• 2730 (Excellent): Accurate, clear, and precise understanding of all key concepts
• 2426 (Good): Mostly accurate understanding; minor gaps or imprecision
• 2123 (Satisfactory): Basic understanding; explanations are thin or unclear
• 020 (Poor): Major misunderstandings or missing concepts

Criterion 2: Philosophical Reasoning & Analysis (30 points)

Quality of explanation, example, and evaluation

• 2730: Thoughtful reasoning; example is relevant and well-explained; evaluation is clear
• 2426: Reasoning is solid but underdeveloped in places
• 2123: Minimal analysis; example or evaluation is weak
• 020: Little or no reasoning; post is mostly descriptive

Criterion 3: Engagement with Peers (20 points)

Quality of replies to classmates

• 1820: Two or more substantive, thoughtful replies that advance discussion
• 1617: Replies engage but lack depth
• 1415: Replies are brief or mostly affirmational
• 013: Fewer than two replies or replies lack substance

Criterion 4: Clarity, Organization, and Writing (20 points)

Communication quality

• 1820: Clear, organized, and well-written; ideas flow logically
• 1617: Mostly clear with minor issues
• 1415: Organization or clarity problems interfere somewhat
• 013: Writing is unclear or difficult to follow

You must start a thread before you can read and reply to other threads

Journal Topic

Post #1: How does Orlando Pattersons social death help us interpret a Kara Walker silhouette or a Billie Holiday performance? Use one specific example.

Concepts: Social death, natal alienation, genealogical isolation, the human/subhuman binary, the “afterlife of slavery,” critical fabulation.

• Readings: Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death (selections: Introduction, pps.35-45, chpt. 12 (CP); Saidiya Hartman, “Venus in Two Acts” (CP); Curry (IABWA).
• Sonic Curriculum: Robert Johnson (Hellhound on My Trail); Billie Holiday (Strange Fruit), Dorothy Ashby (The Moving Finger).
• Visual Philosophy: Kara Walker (silhouettes, violence, archival silence); Archival Photographs (e.g., mugshots, ethnographic images) read through Hartmans lens.
• Philosophy Journal Post #1: How does Pattersons social death help us interpret a Kara Walker silhouette or a Billie Holiday performance?
• Film: Julie Dash, Daughters of the Dust (opening scenes on Ibo Landing).

PHIL 327/LS 351 Online: Philosophy of Law

Essay Assignment 1: Critical Analysis

General Instructions

Write a brief essay on the topic given below. The essay should be no more than 3 double-

spaced pages in length (900-1000 words by computer word count), using 1-inch margins and a

standard font (e.g., Times New Roman, size 12). Part of the assignment involves explaining the

relevant course concepts and advancing your argument concisely, so make sure you attend to

the word limit.

Due Date: Your essay is due on Wednesday, Feb. 4, at 11:59 pm ET.

The following pieces of information MUST be on the front page of your assignment:

Student ID Number

Course Name and Number

Assignment (i.e., Essay Assignment 1 OR Critical Analysis)

Date

DO NOT include your name anywhere on the assignment. Your student number is all that’s

needed.

Use one of the following file formats for your submission: Rich Text Format (.rtf) or Microsoft

Word format (.doc or .docx

Important note on Generative AI: The use of generative artificial intelligence toolsfor example,

Chat GPTat any stage in the production of content for your submission is not permitted and

will be open to the charge of academic misconduct

Topic and Instructions:

Modules 2 and 3 have introduced us to two different ways of conceiving of the nature of the law.

Natural Law theories argue that the law is necessarily moral. Legal Positivism, specifically the

Command Theory interpretation we examined in Module 3, argues that the law need not be

moral in that it consists only of commands coming from the right (pedigreed) sourcei.e., a

sovereign authority.

In this essay, you will argue for the theory you think is best: Natural Law or Command Theory.

Choose one of the Natural Law perspectives we surveyed in Module 2 and contrast it with

Austins Command Theory, which we survey in Module 3. Offer a concise summary of these two

perspectives on law, then provide and evaluation in which argue for your own position on which

of the two perspective is the more credible.

The paper should have two sections. The first section is expository. Refrain from summarizing

everything you know about the two positions. Make sure the exposition is focussed on what you

take to be the most salient features of each theory.

In the second section of the paper, you must offer a critical argument that provides your reasons

for preferring one theory over the other. If upon reflection you do not think either theory is to be

preferrede.g., if you find both of them defectiveyou are free to make that case and respond

to it with a suggestion of your own on how the defects should be addressed. The important thing

to remember is that this section is about making arguments, not just engaging in exposition.

Your essay should argue for a clear, critical point of view.

While there is some flexibility in how much of your essay is devoted to the tasks of each section,

it is important that you devote substantial space to both. The expository task will likely require at

least half of the allotted space (1.5 pages double-spaced), but if your exposition goes much

beyond that, you may need to consider cutting it down so as to leave enough space to make

your critical argument. The argumentative section should be at least a full double-spaced page,

or longer if space permits.

Further Guidelines

Here are some basic points to remember when writing your essay:

A brief introduction is useful, but it must be kept very briefno more than two or three

well crafted sentences stating the focus of your essay and what you will be arguing for.

Be aware that a proper engagement with this topic should NOT be conducted solely on

the basis of the online lesson materials occurring in the LEARN modules. You must

engage the relevant course readings, first and foremost.

Be concise! Since this is a short paper, youll need to make some choices about what to

include and what to leave out. Try to stick to the essentials, leaving out matters of detail

that dont centrally contribute to the issues you are trying to illuminate.

Avoid unnecessary padding and/or digression.

In a paper of this length, a concluding paragraph is unnecessary. The reader should be

able to keep track of your thoughts well enough without a concluding summary.

Sources and Citations

Providing appropriate citations is an important part of the task of this essay assignment. Follow

the instructions given below carefully. Be aware that citations are needed not only for direct

quotations, but for any representation of ideas drawn from other authors (e.g. paraphrases,

summaries, etc.). Also be aware that failure to provide appropriate citations constitutes an

academic offence. Here are some specific instructions on how to provide citations:

Use in-text citations of the (<author>, <page #>) format whenever you directly quote,

paraphrase, or mention ideas from the relevant text.

Direct quotations should be kept brief (one or two sentences) and used only for the

purpose of illustrating points you have already encapsulated in your own words.

If you cite material from the course lessons, it suffices to cite the course author, the

module, and the lesson you are citinge.g., (Ray, 3b).

Since the only sources you need to consult for this essay are the relevant course

materials, a separate Works Cited is unnecessary.

Use only the relevant course readings as sources for this essay. Do not consult

outside sources.

Module 2 Readings: Aquinas:

Treatise on Law from Summa Theologica, pp. 27-41. (Textbook) – Can find online

Finnis: Excerpts from Natural Law and Natural Rights, pp. 41-61. (Textbook) – Can find online

King, Dr. Martin Luther (1963). The Negro is your brother. The Atlantic Monthly 212(2), 7888.

Module 3 Readings:

Hobbes, T. (1968). Chapters 13, 14, and 15 of

Austin: The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, pp. 68-84. (Textbook) Can find online

Please use the space below to provide answers for the questions below — as guided by the professor’s individual comments to you.

Some of you, based on your in-class responses to these same questions, may have to only answer a couple of the questions. However, if you were not able to provide adequate answers in class, you can expect that you will need to provide detailed responses here.

Each question response here should be at least 150 words. Of course, your response should be based on the assigned materials posted on Canvas and our class lectures, not any other outside research (i.e., don’t go running to a dictionary … or your favorite AI assistant). Do your best. Good luck!

—

1. Daniel Pals issues an important caution about running to a dictionary for a definition of religion. Defining, he claims, is linked to explaining. What does he mean by that? And why is it important?

2. What is the important contrast Pals draws between substantive and functional theories of religion?

3. How does Tim Crane respond to the God Hypothesis? How is his response related to his definition of religion? How are the pessimist and optimist versions of atheism related? Which does Crane favor? Explain his reasoning.

4. According to Crane, what is “religious impulse”? How is it different from “religious temperament”?

In this module, we’re continuing our work on critical reading, and in particular, thinking about the specific form and nature of arguments. Divide your first post into two paragraphs: in the first, locate a deductive argument by either of the writers (note that this is a dialog between two individuals — both of whom give several arguments to each other), in the article “Arguments Against God”. Put the deductive argument into a form that we can see that it’s deductive — identify the premises and the conclusion. Then, tell us whether it is sound, and if not, which premises are not true, and why. Read the chapter carefully and review the module materials to be sure you understand the difference between inductive and deductive arguments, and valid and sound arguments. In another paragraph, locate an inductive argument given by either of the writers in the article above. Identify the premises and the conclusion.use the word malapropism Explain what kind of argument you’ve located, and what criteria you can give to show whether it’s a strong or weak argument. Cite your sources in a “references” section. Article: