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.
Descartes second argument for proving God’s existence is very straightforward. He has four possibilities that created his existence. Through process of elimination he is left with God being his creator.
In Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous and Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, philosophers George Berkeley and René Descartes use reasoning to prove the existence of God in order to debunk the arguments skeptics or atheists pose. While Berkeley and Descartes utilize on several of the same elements to build their argument, the method in which they use to draw the conclusion of God’s existence are completely different. Descartes argues that because one has the idea of a perfect, infinite being, that being, which is God therefore exists. In Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley opposes the methodology of Descartes and asserts that God’s existence is not dependent on thought, but on the senses and
In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself.
Aquinas believes that is it reasonable to believe that something that we cannot demonstrate, but not anything only certain things. Aquinas’ arguments rely heavily on Aristotle, and unlike Anselm another philosopher who argued for the existence of God; Aquinas’ arguments are based on experience. Aquinas put together five different ways that are five separate arguments. This essay is going to go in depth about the second way (argument) that is the argument from efficient causality (cosmological argument) and Paul Edward’s objection against it.
This is exactly what Aquinas believes, only his argument is much clearer. First, he asks "whether it can be demonstrated that God exists." This is an important question because if it cannot be demonstrated that God exists, then there is no point in trying to.
One of the most intriguing and admittedly baffling arguments for the existence of God is the ontological argument. It was developed by St Anselm in the 11th century, and the reason said argument is considered unique is because it is an a priori argument rather than an a posteriori argument , which most other arguments for the existence of God tend to take form. It attempts to prove the existence of God, not through any physical evidence, but rather by claiming that the very definition of God is proof enough of his existence; that he is an underlying truth in much the same way mathematical truths are inherently known.
what is normal and usual; that it is not usual to be able to describe
One way that people found to confirm their belief in a God was philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas used the science of philosophy to prove God's existence. He showed five ways in which the existence of God must be absolutely concluded. His first proof dealt with the mover and...
The Design Argument For The Existence Of God This argument is also called the teleological argument, it argues that the universe did not come around by mere chance, but some one or something designed it. This thing was God. This argument is a prosteriori because the observation of the natural world is taken into the mind to conclude that there is a designer. The belief that the universe was designed by God was triggered by things like the four seasons; summer, spring, autumn and winter, that change through the year.
Proving the existence of God is a worthwhile task. If someone did come up with a complete, foolproof argument for the existence of God, the people of the world would have no choice but to believe in His existence. However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy effort, I believe that such a task is not possible through logic and reasoning alone. There is an element of faith that must be present for people to believe, and if that element is not there, no matter how foolproof an argument seems to be, there will always be those who do not believe. In his fifth argument, St. Thomas Aquinas makes as close to foolproof argument that I believe anyone could make, and, for me, it does prove God's existence. However, if that element of faith is not there, I do not think you can completely prove God's existence to everyone.
Instinctually, humans know that there is a greater power in the universe. However, there are a few who doubt such instinct, citing that logically we cannot prove such an existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote of five proofs for the existence of God. The Summa Theologica deals with pure concepts; these proofs rely on the world of experience - what one can see around themselves. In these proofs, God will logically be proven to exist through reason, despite the refutes against them.
...roofs of God’s existence are basically the same in that they are all, essentially, examples of cause and effect. This cause and effect does not neccesarily prove there is a God but it does lead one to wonder what may be the highest cause, and for this there is no proof.
Thomas Aquinas uses five proofs to argue for God’s existence. A few follow the same basic logic: without a cause, there can be no effect. He calls the cause God and believes the effect is the world’s existence. The last two discuss what necessarily exists in the world, which we do not already know. These things he also calls God.
From the discussion, it can be concluded that existence of God can be proved and developed by logical reasoning. They can be proved by seeking answers to our everyday questions like what can be bigger than our reason, who dictates solar system to act like an animate body. The evidence may not have physical existence but it is supported by the physical elements of nature.
There is a lot of argument about does God exist or not exist. It was