Philosophy Now Forum

Is the conclusion that God exists derived by induction reasoning, deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning?

sthitapragya wrote:Is the conclusion that God exists derived by induction reasoning, deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning?

it is derived from both deductive and inductive reasoning. The ontological argument is based on apriori necessity while the cosmological argument is inferred from known facts relating to the physical world. Both arguments have a long history in the philosophy of religion.

http://www.wikipedia/wiki/Cosmological_argument

http://www.wikipedia/wiki/Ontological_argument

Ginkgo wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Is the conclusion that God exists derived by induction reasoning, deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning?

it is derived from both deductive and inductive reasoning. The ontological argument is based on apriori necessity while the cosmological argument is inferred from known facts relating to the physical world. Both arguments have a long history in the philosophy of religion.

http://www.wikipedia/wiki/Cosmological_argument

http://www.twww.healthwikipedia/wiki/On ... l_argument

There is nothing deductive about it because not every premise is rigorously verified. If to were, we wouldn't have so many versions of God. Inductive, maybe, but I am not convinced.

You might be interested in this old thread, sthitapragya. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10204 Intelligent design and irreducible complexity are modern takes on the old argument from design. They claim that things like eyeballs and the spinning flagella of certain bacteria could not have evolved spontaneously, so therefore they must have been created by a 'designer'.
Re deduction, it is a good point about the premises not being rigorously verified, but deduction is simply drawing conclusions from given premises; it doesn't actually matter whether the premises are true. If you stick around, you will grow bored of me repeating that there are only two premises about the universe that are necessarily true:
There is something. Which was pointed out by Parmenides.
There is experience. Which is a slightly mangled version of Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am'.
In general, the only kind of reasoning that concludes that god exists, is wishful thinking.

uwot wrote:You might be interested in this old thread, sthitapragya. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10204 Intelligent design and irreducible complexity are modern takes on the old argument from design. They claim that things like eyeballs and the spinning flagella of certain bacteria could not have evolved spontaneously, so therefore they must have been created by a 'designer'.
Re deduction, it is a good point about the premises not being rigorously verified, but deduction is simply drawing conclusions from given premises; it doesn't actually matter whether the premises are true. If you stick around, you will grow bored of me repeating that there are only two premises about the universe that are necessarily true:
There is something. Which was pointed out by Parmenides.
There is experience. Which is a slightly mangled version of Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am'.
In general, the only kind of reasoning that concludes that god exists, is wishful thinking.

Sounds more like abductive reasoning to me.

sthitapragya wrote:Sounds more like abductive reasoning to me.

Well, yes; that's exactly what arguments to design are, but I was just making a general point about deduction.

Ah, Immanuel Can; good of you to join us. Care to answer any questions?

Trying to define all that fancy nonsense only proves that you haven't understood anything.

Imo the prophecy of the popes proves that there's a higher power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

HexHammer wrote:Trying to define all that fancy nonsense only proves that you haven't understood anything.

Imo the prophecy of the popes proves that there's a higher power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

So basically abductive reasoning. Two out of two so far. And it's not I who hasn't understood anything, it's you. If you understood anything you would read the stories of the elephant headed God, Ganesh. That is real proof of a higher power.

sthitapragya wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Trying to define all that fancy nonsense only proves that you haven't understood anything.

Imo the prophecy of the popes proves that there's a higher power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

So basically abductive reasoning. Two out of two so far. And it's not I who hasn't understood anything, it's you. If you understood anything you would read the stories of the elephant headed God, Ganesh. That is real proof of a higher power.

LOL? ..that's selfdelusion!

But suppose God doesn't exist but rather God IS? What kind of reason reveals that? Plato described it as anamnesis.

Nick_A wrote:But suppose God doesn't exist but raether God IS? What kind of reason reveals that? Plato described it as anamnesis.

Don't cunfuse him with classical theism: sthitapragya doesn't do philosophy.

Usually the existence of God is not concluded through reasoning, but through faith, and occasionally through evidence, much like the evidence that was given for the existence of Black Holes, "What else could it be?"

sthitapragya wrote:Is the conclusion that God exists derived by induction reasoning, deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning?

What kind of reasoning concludes God exists?

The class of reasoning that pre-assumes the existence of god in the first place.

There is no single formal method of the types you enquire upon that is more valid than any other.

Nick_A wrote:But suppose God doesn't exist but rather God IS? What kind of reason reveals that? Plato described it as anamnesis.

It doesn't matter. The point is God does not show himself. The only way one can reason he exists is by one of the three methods. So far it all seems like abductive reasoning.