Theism is the belief in the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent being. The (debated) existence of this being reveals the difference between religion and philosophy. While religion is based on faith, philosophy is rooted in reason and evidence. Philosophical beliefs are often stronger because where faith might be lost, good argument persists. These arguments for the existence of God take two forms: deductive and inductive. A deductively valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises – if they are in fact true – guarantees the conclusion. Consequently, deductive arguments preserve the truth; nothing new is logically introduced in the conclusion because the truth of the conclusion is based on the truth of the premises. This turns out to be both the weakness of the deductive argument and what separates it from the inductive one. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay An inductive argument, on the other hand, is one that gives good reasons for its conclusion without preserving the truth and without guaranteeing its truth. It relies on the truth of its premises to introduce a new conclusion. An inductive argument usually takes one of three forms: from specific events to generalizations, from past observations to predictions, and from observed examples to explanations of the unobserved. Two of the main arguments for theism are the cosmological argument and the argument from design. which are deductive and inductive respectively. Aquinas's cosmological argument is deductive because it relies on true premises to reach a conclusion that is true, provided the premises are true. Aquinas's premises state that everything is dependent (A) or self-existent (B) and not everything is dependent (not A). Therefore, the conclusion states that it is a self-existent being (∴B). The structure of this deductive argument isIf A or BNot A∴BThe conclusion (B) lies within the first premise (A or B), then the truth of the premise is preserved in the conclusion. This establishes the cosmological argument as a deductive argument not only because it is built on premises contained in the conclusion, but also because nothing new is introduced. Paley's argument is inductive because he uses the premises to deduce a new conclusion. While it does not guarantee the conclusion, the premises are easily established and support the explanation of the conclusion. The teleological argument is an argument by analogy. In his initial case, the premises state that if one were to spring for a watch (or a device capable of telling time), and the components of the watch come together so well that it is excellent at telling time, it can be inductive he deduced that the clock had been designed by a clockmaker to tell the time. When this analogy is applied to the biological domain, since this domain is much more complex than even the best clock, the being who created the biological domain is made to be an omnipotent and omniscient designer. The design argument takes the third form of an inductive argument as it uses observed examples to explain what is unobserved. As long as the premises are true, the argument introduces the new conclusion of the existence of an intelligent designer. Although the cosmological argument is considered a deductive argument, it ultimately relies on inductive reasoning. The deductive nature of the conclusion is based on the truth of the premises; however, both premises of the argument are based on the principle of sufficient reason. The PSR states that for every positive fact there must be an explanation – or perhaps, severalapplicable, for every being, there must be an explanation. The PSR rejects the idea of ​​a being without explanation because a being that exists has its presence as a positive fact. The PSR therefore confirms the first premise of the cosmological argument that everything is explained either by other beings or by the nature of being itself. Rowe argues that the PSR also explains the second premise of the argument. The PSR states that in the set of all dependent events that have ever happened, every event must have a reason. However, the PSR also requires that the infinite series must have a first cause or at least an explanation external to the series: an existing self-being. Since PSR is not a necessary truth formed by absolutely true premises, its truth, like all science, is based on induction. Since the PSR explains the premises of the cosmological argument, and the PSR is an inductive argument, the deductive cosmological argument, in addition to the argument already inductive by design, ultimately relies on inductive reasoning. Explain why in Paley's watchmaker's inductive argument, the reasoning cannot assume that the thing he "throws" at when crossing the "moor" is a watch. Why would such an assumption fatally weaken Paley's inductive argument for the best explanation of the intentional appearance of ends/means of biological organisms and their parts? Paley opens his inductive argument about the watchmaker with the hypothesis that he “throws” on a watch. However, we cannot use “a pocket or wrist watch” as the definition of a watch, but rather we must define a watch as something that can be used to tell the time. Using the standard definition of clock undermines the inductive nature of the argument. There are many things in nature that can be used to tell the time: the sun, the tides, tree rings; but a watch, as we know it, is a man-made artifact. The standard definition is a necessary truth, so any argument that uses it as a premise is a deductive argument. In this argument by analogy, the existence of the watchmaker is a new fact that Paley seeks to introduce, and therefore must be external to the premises. For this reason the argument must be inductive, because by assuming that the object Paley advances upon when crossing the moor is a pocket or wrist watch, he establishes the existence of the watchmaker on the premises rather than proving it in the conclusion. Not only was it essential to the inductive nature of the argument that Paley did not define the watch as a timepiece, but it also strengthened his conclusion. More specifically than defining the clock as a thing one can use to tell the time, Paley goes on to describe the clock as "several parts [that] are framed and assembled for a purpose." The components that make up the watch are just born. work together so neatly that it is excellent for telling time, so much so that one can inductively deduce that the watch was made specifically for the purpose of telling time. Unlike the standard definition of a watch, these premises do not rely on the existence of a watchmaker, but rather lead to such a conclusion. Each subsequent description of the components strengthens the inductive argument. Every included coil, spindle, and wheel adds to the complexity of the machine, and as a result, the intelligence and skill of the watchmaker must be much greater. On the other hand, presenting the watch as a singular object discredits the watchmaker's meticulous craftsmanship. . When this analogy is applied to the biological domain, this complexity increases exponentially to such an extent that the creator of the biological domain must be omniscient and omnipotent. For example, the number of base pairs in the.