Argument from Absoluteness

[max-greece]

@max-greece:

The problem with your argument is that one of the premises rests on an inductive inference. A deductive proof argument cannot rest on an inductive inference because it makes the deduction invalid because inductive inferences do not have a 'necessary' truth value. It's like oil and water, you can't mix the two, inductive and deductive inferences. It could be reformatted to be a valid deductive argument, but doing so would require restating the conclusion to be that God probably does not exist, with the probability governed by the inductive inference. Unfortunately, there's no deterministic way to set those probabilities, and so the conclusion becomes highly controversial, and justifiably so.

You are so far beyond my understanding of the nature of philosophical arguments that I have to accept that as is, without actually understanding it fully.

Seemed sound logically to me is all I can say in defence.

Thanks.

---

Actually, as an afterthought, if the last line read "So we can presume God does not exist," would that fix the problem?

It seems to me that the argument now strongly resembles the basis for the majority of scientific enquiry.