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 one risks losing faith, a 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. Therefore, deductive arguments preserve 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 deductive argumentation and what differentiates it from inductive argumentation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an original essayAn inductive argument, on the other hand, is one that gives good reasons for its conclusion without preserving the truth and without guaranteeing its veracity. It relies on the truth of its premises to introduce a new conclusion. An inductive argument generally 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 in support of theism are the cosmological argument and the argument from design. which are considered deductive and inductive respectively. The cosmological argument of Saint Thomas Aquinas is deductive because it relies on true premises to arrive at a conclusion which is true, as long as the premises are true. Aquinas' premises state that everything is either dependent (A) or self-existent (B) and that everything is not dependent (not A). Therefore, the conclusion indicates that it is a self-existent being (∴B). The structure of this deductive argument is If A or BNo A∴BThe conclusion (B) is found in the first premise (A or B), so the truth of the premise is preserved in the conclusion. This affirms the cosmological argument as a deductive argument not only because it relies on premises contained in the conclusion, but also because nothing new is introduced. Paley's argument is, by design, inductive because it uses the premises to deduce a new conclusion. Although it does not guarantee its conclusion, the premises are easy to establish and support the explanation of the conclusion. The teleological argument is an argument by analogy. In its initial case, the premises state that if we attacked a watch (or a device capable of telling time), and the components of the watch fit together so perfectly that it was excellent to tell the time, it could be inductive. inferred that the watch was designed to tell time by a watchmaker. When this analogy is applied to the biological domain, because this domain is much more complex than even the best watch, the being who created the biological domain is induced to be an omnipotent and omniscient designer. The argument by design takes the third form of an inductive argument because it uses observed examples to explain the unobserved. As long as the premises are true, the argument introduces the new conclusion of the existence of an intelligent designer. While the cosmological argument is considered a deductive argument, it is ultimately based on inductive reasoning. The deductive character of the conclusion rests on the truth of the premises; however, bothThe 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 more applicable, 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. Thus the PSR affirms the first premise of the cosmological argument according to which 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 occurred, each 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: a proper cause. -be existing. Because PSR is not a necessary truth formed from absolutely true premises, its truth, like all science, relies on induction. Because the PSR explains the premises of the cosmological argument, and the PSR is an inductive argument, the deductive cosmological argument, in addition to the already inductive argument, ultimately relies on inductive reasoning. Explain why in Paley's watchmaker's inductive argument, the reasoning cannot begin with the assumption that the thing he "throws" at when he crosses the "briar" is a watch. Why would such an assumption fatally weaken Paley's inductive argument for the best explanation of the intentional appearance of the ends/means of biological organisms and their parts? Paley begins his inductive watchmaker argument by assuming that he is “throwing” a watch. However, we cannot use "a pocket watch or timepiece" as the definition of a watch, but rather we must define a watch as an object that one can use to tell the time. Using the standard definition of a watch undermines the inductive nature of the argument. There are many things in nature that can be used to tell time: the sun, 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 using it as a premise is a deductive argument. In this argument by analogy, the existence of the watchmaker is a new fact that Paley is trying to introduce, and must therefore be external to the premises. For this reason, the argument must be inductive, because starting from the hypothesis that the object on which Paley walks when crossing the moor is a pocket watch or a wrist watch, 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 Paley's argument not to define the watch as a timepiece, but it also strengthened his conclusion. More specifically than defining the watch as an object for telling time, Paley goes on to describe the watch as “several pieces [that] are framed and assembled for a specific purpose.” The components that make up the watch simply arrive. working together so perfectly that it is excellent at telling time, so much so that one can inductively deduce that the watch was designed specifically for the purpose of telling time. Unlike the standard definition of watchmaking, these premises do not rely on the existence of a watchmaker, but rather lead to such a conclusion. Each successive description of the components strengthens the inductive argument. Each coil, spindle and wheel included increases the complexity of the machine and, therefore, the intelligence and skill of the watchmaker must be that much greater. On the other hand, presenting the watch as a.