Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer. Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: Every dog I meet is friendly. Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick. Hypothesis: Colds are infectious.
How does inductive reasoning support a justified belief in God? And which version of God?
You tell me.... I was just pointing out an example of proving a negative from professor Steven Hales of philosophy, at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania.
The devil lies in the detail; the definition of 'proof' - if the premises are flawed, it matters not that a conclusion follows from the premises because the conclusion may still be invalid - ie- “all birds can fly, and penguins can’t fly, so penguins aren’t birds”,
It's irrelevant to the issue of an absence of sufficient evidence to prove a proposition. If there is insufficient evidence to support a justified belief that Zeus, Odin, Allah, Brahman, etc, exists, there is no reason to be convinced of their existence.
That can be applied to any of the long list of gods that humankind has believed in over countless millennia.
An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results. A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms part of the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may also be wrong.
However, it should be noted that whether or not an argument is "valid" does not depend on whether its premises are true. It rather depends on whether the conclusion follows from them, which is to say, on whether under the assumption that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well.
For example, consider this syllogism:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion) This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Wrong. The "streets are wet" is an observation only. Water made the street wet is a solid premise. God made the street wet is an invalid premise.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
