The Christian Vanguard

The following is an essay I turned in for my British Empiricism class. It is on Hume's Problem of Induction.  Deductive and inductive reasoning are types of argument structures. In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. For example, if 1) All cats are mammals 2) Felix is a cat, then it would follow inescapably that 3) Felix is a mammal. If 1 and 2 are true, there is no possible or conceivable world in which 3 is not true. Inductive arguments do not provide this guarantee. A good inductive argument only makes the conclusion more probable or likely than not. For example, if 1) 90% of people can swim, and 2) Michael is a person, then 3) Michael can swim, though not guaranteed, is likely. It does not follow with logical necessity because Michael may just happen to be part of that 10% of the population that does not swim.  David Hume’s problem of induction states that inductive justifications that rely on past experiences wi...

The following is a study guide I typed out for my philosophy of religion class. The Problem of Evil A. “Evil and Omnipotence” J.L. Mackie (1) Explain the problem of evil. The problem of evil states there is a contradiction within this set of statements: God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and evil exists. Since God is omnibenevolent, God wishes to abolish evil, and since God is omnipotent, then God could abolish evil. If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God exists, then evil does not exist. But since evil exists, then an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God does not exist. (2) Explain the problems with the four fallacious solutions Mackie considers. 1. “Good cannot exist without evil” or “Evil is a necessary counterpart to good” The main problem with this response is that it restricts God’s omnipotence, if not outright rejects it. If God and evil are necessary counterparts, then God cannot eliminate evil. This would also make “good” and “evil” similar to being “great” and “small”, but ...

The following was an essay I turned in for class. There were footnotes, but those didn't copy over. The copying also made the Bayesian formula a little weird, but I did my best to make it look like a legit equation.  David Hume has a two pronged argument against belief in miracles. The first is granting for the sake of argument that a full proof could be given for a miracle. Since the full proof for a miracle stands against a full proof against it, the miracle cannot be believed. The second is that in actuality, there has never been a full proof mounted for a miracle, so even more so miracle cannot be believed.  Hume sets out as a principle of knowledge that one proportions his belief to evidence. When one comes to two competing propositions that needs to be judged, one proposition may tip the scales, so to speak, and the weightier proposition will be the more probable one. Now miracles are defined as a violation of the laws of nature. What establishes a law of nature...