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.
The question of God’s existence has been debated through the history of man, with every philosopher from Socrates to Immanuel Kant weighing in on the debate. So great has this topic become that numerous proofs have been invented and utilized to prove or disprove God’s existence. Yet no answer still has been reached, leaving me to wonder if any answer at all is possible. So I will try in this paper to see if it is possible to philosophically prove God’s existence.
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.
Back in 1200s, St. Thomas Aquinas has provided "five ways" to prove for the existence of God, which I am persuaded by, and hopefully others would see the same 'light' in this argument--unfortunately, it does not provide sufficient answers regarding the 'nature of God' (Bailey and Martin, 2011, 37). All five arguments share the "form of logic called syllogism," "initial premise, starting from the empirical facts," and the existence of "transcendent cause" to everything (Bailey and Martin, 2011, 25). Here, I will choose the second way, the argument of "efficient cause," which I feel it as the most compelling argument and sums up other arguments to demonstrate for the existence of God. 'God,' here is defined as the God introduced in the Bible of Christianity.
that the same can be said for the universe as a whole. It seems to
In order to prove an argument or premise Descartes states, “we must be able to conceive clearly and distinctly of the cause in order to truly believe the argument.” Descartes clearly and distinctly believes the existence of God stating that, “all things are dependent on God’s existence, and God is not a deceiver.” Due to this premise we must than conclude that without a Supreme Being to incite knowledge than it is not possible to ever know anything perfectly.
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.
In some ways the arguments for the existence of God combat each other, in asking which one is more convincing. There are two types of arguments, there are empirical arguments along with a rationalistic argument. Anselm, Paley, and Aquinas are the three significant leaders in the philosophy world for finding an argument for the existence of God. The question that is being posed is which is more convincing, Anselm’s rationalistic proof, or the empirical arguments?
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.
Thomas Aquinas takes up the argument for God’s existence by providing the concept that what belongs to a being is either from its nature or extrinsic factors. By this principle, people must have an origin. Just as I am a product of the extrinsic factors known as my parents, my parents are of their parents, so on and so forth. Aquinas believes there must exist a beginning to this chain and there is nothing else conceivable to be responsible for the origin of humans besides his God. Aquinas also uses the same logic with causes of motion as another reason for God’s existence. The essence of Aquinas’ logic is that God exists because he (or she or it) exists and is the only entity for which this is so. This rationale is also circular in nature. Both these arguments prove God’s existence only for those who are already believers, making them fall short of their true
This paper's purpose is to prove the existence of God. There are ten main reasons that are presented in this paper that show the actuality of God. It also shows counter-arguments to the competing positions (the presence of evil). It also gives anticipatory responses to possible objections to the thesis.
...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.
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience.
There is a lot of argument about does God exist or not exist. It was