• Join over 1.2 million students every month
• Accelerate your learning by 29%
• Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Compare and contrast proof and probability. (10 marks)

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

﻿Compare and contrast proof and probability. (10 marks) Proof derives from a priori grounds which are deductive. A priori is based on solid facts and logic so there is only one possible conclusion. ?An argument which starts from one or more premises, which are prepositions taken for granted for the purpose of the argument, and argues to a conclusion? (Swinburne). In mathematics and logic, a statement is proven if it cannot be proven to be false. For example, 1+1=2 cannot be incorrect as it abides the laws of mathematics. ...read more.

Middle

A posteriori relies on our senses rather than on facts which causes there to be many possible conclusions; the most probable answer is taken as the conclusion. The inductivity of a posteriori arguments always leaves a door for doubt and uncertainty. Probability measures the likelihood of a conclusion to be true; the most probable answer however is not the only conclusion. A problem with proofs is the dependence of limited human experiences and resources. As a priori relies on logical reasoning, there is an area exposed to flaws since the human reasoning may be inadequate or limited in knowledge. ...read more.

Conclusion

features of human experience? (Swinburne). Furthermore, there may be an alternative conclusion which is just as convincing as the other; the conclusion chosen is based on the person?s opinion. An advantage of a priori arguments is that they are appealing to logic and reason and so is understood better. The ontological argument sets out to prove that it is logically impossible to believe in the non-existence of god, using factual premises in order for the conclusion to be deductive. Although a posterior arguments are not deductive, they are convincing because they can be experienced which may be factual for some people. The cosmological and teleological arguments are a posteriori arguments therefore the conclusions are inductive and rely on probability. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

• Start learning 29% faster today
• 150,000+ documents available
• Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
• Join over 1.2 million students every month
• Accelerate your learning by 29%
• Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

1. Moot-court Reflective Report.

6, the right to a fair trail, and also a case that I found, R vs. Cambridge University Ex Parte Beg 1999. This was the first case I used, even though it went against the point I was making, I thought it would be good authority, and I thought I

2. Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death.

Or thirdly, that some memories may result from psychological problems and be manifested as memories of earlier lives when in fact they are suppressed events from this life. These three explanations seem relatively weak and unable to explain the multitude of 'regressions' which have taken place.

1. Outline the teleological proof of the existence of God

In this case he used a dialogue to try and shatter the argument to "reductio ad absurdum". In his dialogue he had three characters, Philo, Cleanthes and Demea. Cleanthes, who believed in God and argues an a posteriori to God, would be challenged by Philo, who is actually Hume will argue against design.

2. Proof and Probability in Arguing for God's Existence.

Either way we have shown that we must question one of our premises. What happens if we apply this test to an invalid argument? Take this as an example: (1) If Jesus were just a man, he would be mortal (2)

• Over 160,000 pieces
of student written work
• Annotated by
experienced teachers
• Ideas and feedback to