# The status of PDA as a 'proof' Flashcards Preview

## A level RE philosophy : the teleological argument 1 > The status of PDA as a 'proof' > Flashcards

Flashcards in The status of PDA as a 'proof' Deck (8)
1
Q

proof

A

sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition

2
Q

proof : examples

A
• facts are strong enough 2 show summat as true
• eg : receipt = ‘proof of purchase’ / jury find you 100 % innocent of a crime

neither cases proof = 100% bc may have stolen the receipt from trash + maybe w/ a convincing lawyer

3
Q
1. can be inductive
A
• argument = inductive + a posteriori
• inductive : uses reasoning 2 show truth of a conclusion
• about the probability of a truth

eg : we argue what we observe abt. order in universe 2 supposed cause = God

4
Q

inductive evidence CAN amount 2 proof when all evidence point to the truth of the conclusion

A

eg : all water boils @ 100 degrees @ sea level

• the test to prove that truth is verifiable + repeatable by anyone
• can b v powerful arguments , mostly in science where they have status as ‘proof’ + can be used to uncover scientific truths
5
Q

Paley’s DA = inductive, but does not amount to scientific evidence

A
• we have no clear way of assessing the degree of a probability in PDA
• whichever bit we take of it, some1 will always reject in favour of Hume’s view that UNIVERSE ORGANISES ITSELF EG :
1. p’s evidence of regularity + complexity of orbits + planets = not strong enough - could be just gravity + another part of matter which works a certain way
2. p’s evidence abt. design in nature = not strong enough / what we see as designed could be just chance ( if multiverse theory = through)
6
Q

PDA could be top explanation for order seen in universe

A

in general,we see 2 explanations : someone designed it or designed itself

made self ? : orderliness has no explanation

someone made it ? : apparent orderliness shows maker’s design

best explanation : depends on personal opinion

Hume : could be many designers w/ different purpose of which part 2 make ( ship : many bits n bobs )

God believers : OBVS a single, omnipotent designer - THEREFORE MAY BE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT WHICH AMOUNTS TO PERSONAL PROOF

7
Q

some individuals, who believe in God, PDA may not be proof bc that only comes abt via religious experience

A

kind of psychological certainty they’d experienced God ( speaking in tongues / miracles / near death experience )

8
Q

PDA can NEVER have status as DEDUCTIVE PROOF

A
• bc it’s probably true
• no inductive argument will ever be logically true - IA are based on observation + we can never be 100 % sure on our observations