MINOR PREMISE: We have no sufficient evidence for the proposition that God exists.
______________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION: One ought not believe that God exists.
But what, you might ask, is sufficient evidence?
Radical skepticism (or radical scepticism) is the philosophical position that all knowledge is most likely impossible.
Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified.
Most members of the skeptical school of philosophy augured for what might be called 'epistemological skepticism'--their focus was upon the reliability of our senses and therefore our ability to make knowledge claims about the world around us. A number of philosophers came to argue that our senses were not reliable sources of factual information. We do not know the external world because we cannot trust our senses, since they have deceived us in the past.
According to skeptics, our knowledge of the external world is blocked because various logical possibilities can be raised--that we are in a dream or are living in a computer-generated virtual reality.
Another skeptical view is that we do not know the world because the mind's structures are a distorting influence on our knowledge of what is real.
Rene Descartes proved, at least to himself, that there was something could be known to exist. He captured this awareness in a profound statement: "I think; therefore, I am." Of course, he could not prove beyond any doubt that anyone else or anything else existed, but he had sufficient proof--beyond any doubt (at least to himself) that he existed. Because he could think, he knew undoubtedly that he existed as a thinking being.
Still, as a radical skeptic, one could not prove (nor claim to know) anything beyond his or her own existence. Such limited perspective in regards to existence would hinder scientific discovery because it would not allow anyone to claim anything as factual outside of his or her own mind.
Thus, to aid scientific discovery, which is based upon inductive reasoning, one must make some provision for believing things other than one's own existence. There are five assumptions in the following provisional hypotheses: (1) I exist, (2) my senses are sometimes accurate, (3) only beliefs that are justified by physical evidence are valid, (4) belief strength is proportional to evidence amount, and (5) evidence-based beliefs are validated through re-examination.
But what, you might ask, is sufficient evidence?
Radical skepticism (or radical scepticism) is the philosophical position that all knowledge is most likely impossible.
Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified.
Most members of the skeptical school of philosophy augured for what might be called 'epistemological skepticism'--their focus was upon the reliability of our senses and therefore our ability to make knowledge claims about the world around us. A number of philosophers came to argue that our senses were not reliable sources of factual information. We do not know the external world because we cannot trust our senses, since they have deceived us in the past.
According to skeptics, our knowledge of the external world is blocked because various logical possibilities can be raised--that we are in a dream or are living in a computer-generated virtual reality.
Another skeptical view is that we do not know the world because the mind's structures are a distorting influence on our knowledge of what is real.
Rene Descartes proved, at least to himself, that there was something could be known to exist. He captured this awareness in a profound statement: "I think; therefore, I am." Of course, he could not prove beyond any doubt that anyone else or anything else existed, but he had sufficient proof--beyond any doubt (at least to himself) that he existed. Because he could think, he knew undoubtedly that he existed as a thinking being.
Still, as a radical skeptic, one could not prove (nor claim to know) anything beyond his or her own existence. Such limited perspective in regards to existence would hinder scientific discovery because it would not allow anyone to claim anything as factual outside of his or her own mind.
Thus, to aid scientific discovery, which is based upon inductive reasoning, one must make some provision for believing things other than one's own existence. There are five assumptions in the following provisional hypotheses: (1) I exist, (2) my senses are sometimes accurate, (3) only beliefs that are justified by physical evidence are valid, (4) belief strength is proportional to evidence amount, and (5) evidence-based beliefs are validated through re-examination.
