Issues for Analysis and evaluation - Inductive/cosmological Flashcards
What are the two issues?
-The extent to which the Kalam Cosmological argument is convincing
-Whether the inductive arguments for God’s existence are persuasive
What are the arguments in support of Kalam cosmological argument being convincing?
-Written in the modern scientific age. Craig therefore has an advantage because he has access to contemporary scientific information which all provide straightforward scientifically valid evidence that the universe has a beginning. Also agree that there’s a starting point. Therefore, there is a useful basis of opinion for the argument demonstrating the beginning of the universe
-The fact that the universe has a point in which it began is not in dispute and is readily accepted, the concept that all things have a beginning supports 1st part of Kalams argument. Therefore it appears convincing.
-Kalam believes the only viable personal agent possible of existing outside of the universe and having power and ability to create a universe is God. This is attractive to theists
What are the arguments against the idea that Kalam’s cosmological argument is convincing?
-Argument moves from the idea that the universe has a beginning to the cause being external (God), empirical support is no longer available. So its only convincing if an individual is willing to accept this next step.
-Those not predisposed to the position of a theist do not find it convincing. This is because its contradictory that infinity is impossible and that the personal creator is infinite.
What are the argument in support of whether inductive arguments for Gods existence are persuasive?
-They have ability in establishing probability (they gather evidence and make conclusions based on this). Being evidence based makes the arguments more persuasive, also the fact that they are a posteriori means they depend on evidence and therefore are persuasive and credible. They can also be widely used since they rely on experience which may be universal and testable which makes the argument more understandable and accessible and as a result persuasive.
-The argument recognises that there may be more than one correct answer which is useful when an individual is not certain what the conclusion could be. Its persuasive since it has flexibility. It also allows for possibility of error, changes can be made without undermining the process.
-their basis is of the vast majority of scientifically accepted theories so they have a wide appeal in the 21st century. The fact that they mirror works of science gives validity and persuasiveness
What are the arguments against whether inductive arguments for Gods existence are persuasive?
-They have limited effectiveness as undeniable proofs. Their flexibility is considered as weak and therefore not persuasive
-They can be readily challenged if alternative evidence that’s equally true is presented, this undermines the persuasiveness. Its also possible to accept the evidence but deny the conclusion. If this idea accepted then that suggests it can’t be persuasive.
-The premises do not make it definite
