status of PADA as proof

Question 1

inductive proof?

Answer 1

inductive arguments only give us knowledge about what is probably true, so there is debate over whether the argument can be seen as proof

Question 2

when can inductive arguments amount to proof?

Answer 2

when all the evidence points to the truth of the conclusion, e.g water boils at 100 degrees c at sea level is an inductive argument, but it is something we take as proof in science

Question 3

what is it about paley’s evidence that makes scientist reject it?

Answer 3

we have no clear way of assessing the degree of probability of his argument e.g

paley’s evidence about the regularity of the orbits of planets is not evidence for the existence of . god, since this is gravity and gravity is just part of the way in which matter behaves

paley’s evidence about design in nature has just as much likelihood of being true as multiverse theory

Question 4

could paley’s argument be the best explanation of the order we see in the universe?

Answer 4

paley’s argument works as a good explanation if you already believe in a god - it is a personal proof

Question 5

ultimately, can the argument ever be a logical proof?

Answer 5

inductive arguments can never have the status of a deductive proof, so no inductive argument can ever be logically true