This conceptualization / apprehension of a universal is not what moderns mean by "induction" at all. But eventually, the mind (the active intellect) leaps past the concreteness and particulars in the instances and grasps (in virtue of a concept as a universal) the nature, which is not individual but common to all instances. Am I missing something?Įnough inductive evidence (such as "All humans are mortal")Ĭraig, I think you are introducing "inductive" in two different senses with this.Īccording to A-T philosophy, when we derive the definition of a being (or grasp the essential nature of a thing) we are using what from the beginning appears as an "inductive" process - we experience one example, and then another, and then another. Since it cannot render truth with a 100% certainty (as a sound deductive argument is supposed to do), I am confused as to how this argument can be passed off as a sound deductive argument. But, inductive arguments can never render truth with a 100% certainty. Premise (2), on the contrary, appears to only be supported by inductive arguments such as what modern scientist tell us about the beginning of the universe and the Big Bang theory. Here, premise (1) appears to be support by a deductive arguments of its own based on the metaphysical principle that “nothing can come from nothing.” Thus, premise one appears capable of being known with certainty. But how can a conclusion from a deductive argument be a 100% certain, when at least one of its premises can never be known to be truth with absolute certainty? For example, consider the Kalam Cosmological argument:
![cliffnotes day of infamy by walter lord summary cliffnotes day of infamy by walter lord summary](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/lrwAAOSwxr1d0Alz/s-l400.jpg)
The issue I have noticed is that many Christian apologist claim to be making deductive arguments for certain truths of faith, but support for their premises turn on mere inductive arguments. Though it may be true with some high level of certainty. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.Įven if the premise (1) is true, it does It follow that the conclusion is true with 100% certainty. The sun has rose every single day since I was born.Ģ. As is indicated in the following stock example:ġ.
![cliffnotes day of infamy by walter lord summary cliffnotes day of infamy by walter lord summary](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/GfsAAOSwhOVXepSY/s-l400.jpg)
In contrast, a good inductive argument can never be true with 100% certainty even in principle.
![cliffnotes day of infamy by walter lord summary cliffnotes day of infamy by walter lord summary](http://images.gr-assets.com/users/1452666890p2/5386877.jpg)
Therefore, this thing is bigger than its parts.īecause the truth of the conclusion follows with absolute certainty, deductive arguments are considered the “gold standard.” As is shown in the following syllogism:ģ. So, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true with 100% certainty. Can you have a successful deductive argument with premises supported by inductive arguments? The way I understand it, the strength of a deductive argument comes from the absolute certainty of its conclusion.