The Possibility of Proving the Existence of God Using Inductive and Deductive Arguments

1209 Words3 Pages

The Possibility of Proving the Existence of God Using Inductive and Deductive Arguments

Many philosophers have attempted to prove the existence of God,

although there is no argument as yet which proves without any doubt

that God exists. A proof is the demonstration that something is true

or, in this case, that God exists. There are 3 types of proof; direct,

deductive, and inductive. A direct proof is when something is

immediately obvious, so therefore, it cannot be used to prove God's

existence. However, Inductive and Deductive Arguments could be used to

prove the existence of God.

An Inductive argument is a posteriori (based on experience) which is

logic involving reasoning from effect to cause. Inductive arguments

attempt to create and support a general conclusion based on some

evidence (either physical or based on experience), without making it

absolutely certain. The arguments cannot produce proofs that

completely remove an element of doubt from the conclusion, so the

conclusion does not follow the premises and therefore, certainty can

no longer apply - Probability is used instead. Analogy can be used as

a proof, e.g. Paley's watch in the Design Argument. Using Inductive

arguments, it is possible to prove things, although the induction

never leads to certainty.

Many philosophers have attempted to prove the existence of God using

Inductive Arguments. One example is the Cosmological Argument, which

uses the idea of Motion and Cause. Thomas Aquinas stated 'everything

that happens has a cause' and believed that the existence of the

Universe stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate

explanation of its existence is th...

... middle of paper ...

... when trying to prove the existence of God

using Inductive or Deductive proofs. Inductive proofs are seen to have

un-certain conclusions, whereas Deductive proofs need for certainty

can mean they are impossible to use. It is difficult to gather

evidence for God's existence, and it has been questioned whether we

are able to talk about God at all because he is so different from

human experiences. Proof may be impossible, due to so many

difficulties with any particular proof and because of the assumptions

we make in order to prove things. These assumptions are that human

reason is reliable and that our language actually corresponds to the

common world. If this is not the case, then how can anything be

proven? But perhaps, using Kant's argument, proof is not needed for

the existence of God, because faith is more important.

Open Document