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