Inductive Argument

Good Essays
The existence of God has always been, and remains to be, one of the most widely debated and divisive philosophical issues. Arguments surrounding God’s existence are timelessly important. For many who follow belief systems rooted in monotheism, these arguments support their belief and validate the faith they follow. Others draw comfort from proof of God’s existence, as they feel protected and cared for, and often this can reaffirm a belief in the afterlife too. For some, the arguments are important to satisfy curiosity and answer questions. One thing they all have in common is belief that these arguments are essential. To assess three of the most common arguments, the Teleological, Cosmological and Ontological arguments, it is important to analyse …show more content…
Inductive arguments are those which begin with a premise, based on experience and use this as the basis for a universal claim about the world. Inductive arguments are often less trustworthy , as despite the truth of a premise, it is only speculative to draw a conclusion solely on personal experience.
Because the number of observations we can have is always finite, it can never be certain that the next observation will have the same outcome as the previous – this is known as the problem of induction.

When examining the arguments success, it becomes clear also that an inductive argument can never truly be valid. The definition of validity is given as: “in a valid argument, the conclusion has been correctly inferred from the premises”. Because of the problem of induction, a conclusion cannot necessarily be true if the premises are not definite. If the argument cannot be valid, it also cannot be sound.

However, inductive arguments are not therefore useless, but instead must be analysed differently. Though an inductive argument can never be certain, an argument can be strong or weak dependent on the number of times it has been observed . For example,
…show more content…
Deductive arguments tend to begin with a general premise and go on to draw a conclusion on a specific fact from the general claim given. The Ontological argument is an a priori argument.

One of the most obvious criticisms of the Teleological argument was presented by Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume was not satisfied by Paley’s watch analogy, and criticised the argument by saying it takes for granted that the natural world is actually similar to man-made objects. Hume argued that the strength of an anaological argument (like the Teleological Argument) was dependent on the similarity of the things being compared - though both are complex, besides this there is little similarity between the two, therefore any conclusion drawn from the argument is considered weak.

Hume also presented a second criticism: at best, the Teleological argument only proves the world was designed, not necessarily that God was the designer. Hume said “just because it looks designed, it doesn’t follow that it really was designed, nor does it follow that God was the

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong. It does a better job trying to disprove other theories than actually doing anything to prove its own theory. On the other side, nihilism uses error theory and different arguments to attempt to prove its merits. Objectivism is basically the exact opposite of nihilism, which says that there are no true moral claims. Objectivism is a strong proponent of saying that some moral claims can be true, but it is never specific in its claims of what these “some” cases really are.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Coherentism In Philosophy

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages

    They believe the problem rest on the misunderstanding about coherentism. Often coherentists will point out that their purpose is to build systems of justified beliefs and the idea of justification should not be linear, or circular, it should be holistic in character (BonJour, 2003). A belief will not be justified as true or be rejected as false just because of its relation to its surrounding beliefs. Rather, the belief will be justified if it is in relations with the relevant justified system of beliefs. Some have argued that changing the justification to holistic fails to truly answer the circular problem.…

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If induction cannot take reliability as a definition because a method cannot be defined as reliable by definition, deduction must not be seen as reliable by definition as well, because deduction should also be treated as a methodology and same as induction. What is the difference between deduction and induction that makes deduction automatically true and we need to prove the reliability of induction to use it? Ideally, we also need to prove the legitimacy of the deduction before using it as a reliable way. We normally don’t do that. Someone may say that deduction is true by logic.…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist.…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Alternatively, if our explanations come to an end, then they end either with a belief that is not justified, or with a belief that is justified, but not inferentially. A statement is certain or justified if it is proved, but proof is impossible because it is question-begging – any criterion for the validity of a proof requires a different proof, since self-justification is too easy and always possible. A justification procedure…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon. A doubt in the existence of God is a mere pebble in the universe of beliefs. Just because the option of no universal truth could be true, does not show that it is true or even that it is rational to believe…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The argument that God brought about the universe is somewhat unconvincing and contradictory. Although the argument lays a clear conclusion, it potentially creates more problems than answers. Many find the argument useless, leaving people nothing, and continuing to question the initial first cause. The single most important objection given towards the cosmological argument lies within the question of who created God? Other than the clear statement that God was the initial cause for all things that exist, it appears God is exempt from causation.…

    • 1350 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Paley's Argument Analysis

    • 801 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Philosopher David Hume came up with several complications he had with the argument from design. One of his reasons that I wanted to explore was his belief that the argument is an example of the fallacy of composition. This objection claims that just because you know the cause of several individual events, you cannot make an assumption to define the group as a whole (class notes). This objection is powerful in that if all things that encompass the universe are contingent on something else, this does not mean that the universe as a whole is dependent on something else. While man-made objects must be built with a goal in mind, this does not provide enough evidence to say that the universe was necessarily built with a similar…

    • 801 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Inductive Reasoning

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Empirical information regarding the world is gathered by use of inductive reasoning. This inductive reasoning is defined, not with validity like deductive reasoning , but with the likelihood of the conclusion occurring (Béziau, 2005). In other words, inductive arguments gather from instances of evidence to formulate the likelihood of the occurrence of a conclusion that is much larger in scope than the body of evidence that supports it. Consequently, inductive arguments are said to make generalizations of empirical claims that are composed only from observed instances. Because of this, inductive arguments do not contain full certainty but will always have a degree of uncertainty associated with them.…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    McCloskey does not agree with that argument and contends that, “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” He further contends that what we need to believe is that there was a malevolently powerful or an imperfect designer, (52). This is in contradictory to his argument on the breaking of nature, where there was an uncaused cause. Further, he has no undisputable proof that an imperfect designer was there, which makes his claims disputable, as well. By suggesting there was an imperfect designer of the world, he agrees to the fact that nature was broken at one time. On his idea of indisputability of a proof of God’s existence, he is wrong as Evans and Manis contend that indisputability is, “so high, perhaps, that a proof of theism is in principle unattainable,” (87).…

    • 1586 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays