Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
All about proof :cloud: :mag_right: (Key ideas about proof (What do…
All about proof :cloud: :mag_right:
Key ideas about proof
There are many different ideas about what proof actually is...
Proof is sufficient or overwhelming evidence
: Like a receipt as proof of purchase. :shopping_bags:
What do different philosophers think 'proof' is?
Sometimes probability might not convince atheist. For example,
Hare
says it depends on weather we have a theistic, deistic or atheistic '
blik
' about the universe.
According to
Gerry J Hughes
, proof needs to be redefined as '
overwhelming probability
'. For example nobody has observed quarks.
Hume
, being an
empiricist
, claims that the only way to prove something is by experiencing it, and that it is impossible to know anything outside our senses. In response to Hume, some people might say that all experiences come from the senses and it is impossible to sense things like God or a subatomic particle.
Proof in inductive/ aposteriori arguments
This is an inductive argument that deals with probability rather than proof.
In inductive arguments we don't have proof (or aposteriori because it is based on how individuals perceive the world). Therefore, we need to use our
reasoning
to show the truth of a conclusion.
The argument therefore needs to be
probable
so that we can use our reasoning to agree with it. For this reason, conclusions should be presented with
logical rigour
(thoroughness) that gives
proof beyond reasonable doubts
, meaning that
all the evidence needs to point to the truth of the conclusion
.
Does the Design Argument provide proof for Gods existence?
No
The evidence that Paley gives does not count as scientific proof:*: This argument is
inductive** and needs evidence beyond reasonable doubt to be valid. Paley suggests that the regular orbits of planets about the sun provides strong evidence for the existence of God. But science proves that this is due to gravity and not God.
he evidence that Paley is not probable
: This argument is
inductive
and needs evidence beyond reasonable doubt to be valid. For example, Paley suggests that the regularity of planetary orbits is strong evidence of God and that the evidence of design is too strong to deny the existence of God, but sciencfic proof of gravity and the multiverse theroies is more probable to most epopel. Many people rejects Payley's eveidence and support Hume's veiw that the universe probably orders itsealf instead.
What is 'proof'? :mag_right:
Does prove/ value for faith :+1:
Is the God mentioned the God of religious faith.
Aquinas
:scales: belived that faith in God is supported through reason and God's grace lets us know about Him through natural theology and revelation which are necessary.
Based on
observation
, with simple concepts that will be useful to believers.
Explanation with biggest probability to creation of the universe. QUARKS!
Gives further support to religious believers and shows faith to be reasonable.
Does not prove :-1:
Karl Barth says we can only know God through Jesus Christ revealed through scripture. Kant rejected necessary beings.
It doesn't convince atheists so does not work. Hares concept of 'bliks'.
It is an inductive argument that deals with
probabilities
rather than proofs. But we can accept it if there is overwhelming probability.
Ideas about 'proof'.
Sometimes probability might not convince atheist. For example,
Hare
says it depends on weather we have a theistic, deistic or atheistic '
blik
' about the universe.
According to
Gerry J Hughes
, proof needs to be redefined as '
overwhelming probability
'. For example nobody has observed quarks.
Hume
, being an
empiricist
, claims that the only way to prove something is by experiencing it, and that it is impossible to know anything outside our senses. In response to Hume, some people might say that all experiences come from the senses and it is impossible to sense things like God or a subatomic particle.
This is an inductive argument that deals with probability rather than proof. Therefore conclusions should be presented with
logical rigour
(thoroughness) that gives
proof beyond reasonable doubts
.
Blick
: an interpretation of a view which has meaning for people.