God Existence: Deductive And Inductive Arguments Sample Paper

The question of whether God exists has been the focus of discussions since the times immemorial. Numerous arguments have been provided by both sides of the discussion, each being rather impressive and logically coherent. In the text under analysis, both deductive and inductive reasoning is used to prove that God does not exist. For instance, the author uses an inductive line of reasoning quite successfully to prove their point. Particularly, the inductive argument is constructed by claiming that the life on Earth does not seem to be sustained by the presence of God. Therefore, God does not exist.

To be more accurate, the author of the analysis points to the fact that people act in the way that does not imply that God exists. The pain that they inflict upon each other does not suggest that God is omnipotent and benevolent. Therefore, the author comes to the conclusion that God as a benevolent and omnipotent being as He is described in the Bible cannot possibly be a reality. Hence, using the principles of inductive reasoning, the author infers that God does not exist. The specified argument is partially in line with the STAR criteria. For instance, it is quite accurate and relevant since it uses the available evidence extensively and applies mostly recent information. However, the sufficiency of the analysis is questionable since the author does not embrace the concept of pain from a spiritual and Biblical perspective. Similarly, some of the information concerning the fact that the human race is doomed may be not quite typical. Therefore, some of the elements of the argument may be regarded as lacking consistency. Thus, the induction seems not quite strong, yet moderate. Hence, the argument is both considerably persuasive yet open to critique.

The deductive reasoning used by Lewis is, in turn, quite convincing, yet it may have its flaws. The premise is that not all creatures are happy; particularly, not all people are happy. Quite on the contrary, a lot of people are in pain and, therefore, experience considerable suffering. If people are suffering and in pain, God does not have the omnipotence and benevolence that are typically attributed to Him. Therefore, He does not exist as the concept of the omnipotent and benevolent being as He is described in the Bible. The argument is quite persuasive and straightforward, yet it is also open to critique. For instance, it does not disprove the presence of God directly; instead, it points to the fact that He might not have the omnipotence and powers that are usually used to describe Him. However, the argument may imply that God exists as a being that possesses other powers, or that the current concept of God is erroneous. Thus, the argument opens possibilities for refuting it. The deduction meets the standards of the formal logic since it follows the standard valid logical form. The premises are true, and the argument seems sound.

It seems that the first argument is more convincing than the second one. Although each of the statements has its flaws, the second one leaves no opportunities for generalizing the main statement. As a result, it becomes rather flat. The first argument, however, is much more generic. Being based on observations and specifying that commonplace phenomena are utilized for the analysis, it makes certain errors in assumptions more forgivable. As a result, the overall message of the argument becomes considerably stronger. The identified outcome is quite surprising seeing that each of the assumptions under analysis is aimed to prove the same idea and uses roughly the same tools to do so.

Straw Man Fallacy Vs. Healthy Argument

Straw man fallacy is the substitution of a person’s argument with a distorted form so that it can be easier to attack the opponent by pretending to disagree with an opponent’s viewpoint. It is based on providing an impression of rejecting an argument not presented by an opponent. Since the newly argument was not even initially present, it becomes more difficult to debunk it with facts and logic. Moreover, introducing a new, otherwise invalid argument makes the conflict or debate take an unexpected direction. “Attacking a straw man” is a term used to describe the behavior of an individual who indulges in this fallacy (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2016). Straw man arguments have been used extensively throughout history, especially in debates involving controversial topics. This paper discusses the anatomy of this logical fallacy in detail, contrasting it to a healthy argument.

Straw man arguments, unlike disagreements with someone’s viewpoint, focus on a few specific components of an opponent’s argument. Disagreeing with someone’s point of view involves considering all facts and prioritizing logic over emotions regarding a situation. Disagreements usually emphasize reasoning and supporting evidence as to why you disagree with a particular viewpoint. Straw man arguments tend to distort an opponent’s stance. Straw man arguments usually exaggerate an opponent’s case intending to attack his perspective quickly. Typical disagreements with another person’s perspective are anchored on illustrating why you feel the way you do and the reasons as to why you think you are likely to be correct.

Disagreeing with someone’s viewpoint entails effectively logically presenting your ideas with a motive to persuade the other party to have a different perspective other than poking holes in an opponent’s ideas to defeat them quickly, which is the case in straw man arguments. A simple disagreement with an opponent’s point of view entails tackling a topic holistically and elucidating your reasoning using carefully thought evidence. Contrary to this, straw man arguments quote parts of the opponent’s case out of context (Meeteren, Derudder, & Bassens, 2016). This is usually done to get an opportunity to pin down the opponent to defeat them during the argument. Disagreeing with someone’s point of view should take the form of introducing a new dimension of thinking, not a personal attack.

Unlike healthy disagreements, straw man fallacies are based on a distorted version of the original argument while pretending that there exists no difference between the two versions of a dispute, to invalidate the original case of an opponent. Differing with someone else’s point of view focuses strictly on a specific topic that is not distorted but rather, the different parties involved have differing opinions, and each one tries to convince the other using supporting evidence.

Straw man arguments are meant to distract real issues being discussed through the representation of cases that are not logically valid. The straw man created forms a diversion of attention from the real issues at hand to gain the upper hand in a discussion (Meeteren et al., 2016). Simple disagreements with someone else’s point of view is plausible and valid, with a goal of providing the reasoning behind why one supports a given stand of a given topic, achieved through effectively listening to the other person carefully then trying to persuade them, unlike straw man arguments that introduce an entirely new version of the opponent’s argument.


Meeteren, M. Van, Derudder, B., & Bassens, D. (2016). Can the straw man speak ? An engagement with postcolonial critiques of ‘global cities research.’ 6(3), 247–267.

Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2016). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Gender Studies. “A Cyborg Manifesto” By Haraway

The concern for the lack of gender equality has been raised quite a few times over the past few decades. The technological breakthrough that occurred in the 20th century created opportunities for drawing parallels between a human and a machine by expanding the notion of human nature as the juxtaposition to the one of a machine and applying it to the context of gender issues, as Donna Haraway did in her 1985 “Cyborg Manifesto.” Specifically, she raises the question of how gender issues factor into the emerging identity politics trends and how women are portrayed in the environment of the 20th-century reality. In “A Cyborg Manifesto,” the interaction between science, technology, and feminism is scrutinized thoroughly, the author positing that the cyborg model that has entered the environment of social interactions may disrupt and even destroy the opportunity for building a unique identity.

The creation of a false identity that will misrepresent women is a legitimate reason for concern, yet there are several arguments that “A Cyborg Manifesto” omits, thus turning quite problematic. The denial of the unifying experience that constitutes the notion of being a woman is the primary concern that can be raised when considering the arguments that the author provides. According to Haraway, the notorious cyborg that is constructed in modern society is “a condensed image of both imagination and material reality” (150). The specified assumption implies that the falsely constructed identity damages women, which is a reasonable statement to make. However, it also ignores the shared experience that is characteristic of female identity, and that makes the core of gender relationships, as well as provides the platform for gender discrimination in the contemporary world.

To the credit of the author, “A Cyborg Manifesto” contains several legitimate points concerning the problem of gender-based profiling. For example, outlining the vague barrier between “physical and non-physical,” Haraway points to the source of gender discrimination and the issues in marginalizing women in modern society. Specifying the physical advantage that men have after experiencing puberty, Haraway delineates the main arguments behind viewing women as a protected class.

Nonetheless, the general statement concerning the nature of femininity, the author limits her discussion substantially. By denying the presence of characteristics that unify female experiences across the world, Haraway makes it impossible to specify the reasoning behind the feminist movement and creates premises for dismissing a range of points that the move makes. Blurring the statements that allow introducing a single core into the feminist movement, the manifesto weakens the critical postulates of feminism.

Decrying the loss of a unique identity due to the enforcement of breaking the boundaries between a human being and an animal, as well as a human being and a machine, the author of “A Cyborg Manifesto” proves that the principle of duality in modern relationships may pose a problem. However, the author dismisses the fact that erasing this duality may entail even more drastic outcomes. By avoiding the discussion of the challenges that the denial of the described duality causes, Haraway misses a critical argument concerning the change to introduce unity and homogeneity to the feminist movement. Although some of the concerns raised in the manifesto, such as the perpetuation of gender stereotypes with the help of modern media, are warranted, the lack of focus on the positive aspects of creating a unified setting for the discussion of feminist issues makes the manifesto less poignant.

Work Cited

Harraway, Donna. “A Cyborg Manifesto.” University of Warwick. Web.

error: Content is protected !!