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.
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’ second proof for the existence of God is a sound argument. Aquinas’ argument about the efficient/agent cause is philosophically persuasive because it is easy to apply to things. The second proof is based on the notion of the efficient cause. The efficient cause is based on a chain of cause and effects. Aquinas does a suitable job in proving God’s existence through the order of caused causes through the world of sense.
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.
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.
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created. Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs for the existence of god knows as, the “Five Ways”.[]. In each “way” he describes his proof how god fills in the blanks of the unexplainable. The first way simply states that, things in motion must be put in motion by something. The second was is efficient because, nothing brings its self into existence. The third is, possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias’ has two more ‘ways’ but for the purpose of this essay I won’t be focusing on them heavily. These ways have started philosophers to debate and question his arguments ultimately made the cosmological argument debatable. The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
what is normal and usual; that it is not usual to be able to describe
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?
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
that the same can be said for the universe as a whole. It seems to
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.
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