Harry Potter and God

[Petra Pan]

Petra barges in:
 
The most frustrating aspect of arguing about this issue for 
me has always been the confusing of the inductive argument 
for a deductive argument.  And vice versa.
 
To me, there's a place for both types of arguments.  When 
it comes to things we don't KNOW with a degree of certainty
that is fully satisfying, inductive arguments are pretty 
much the only options, no?
 
As our knowledge base grows, more and more issues can be
argued using deductive arguments that produce conclusions
that are ever more sound.
 
Not knowing when to use which is problematic.  So is not 
knowing when to STOP using either one.  IMO, this is a 
personal choice rather than one that *must* apply to every
human...or even just everyone in a discussion group.
 
Insisting that an inductive argument INDEED HAS the logical 
strength of a deductive one isn't better than insisting 
that an inductive argument MUST have provable premises
(which would effectively make it a deductive one).  And 
vice versa.
 
When we are in pursuit of an ever-growing education, surely 
both should be taken into consideration, neither should be
dismissed out of hand.  Arguably, having to accept the 
presence of That Which Cannot Be Proven True or False in
our lives is just a part of the human condition.
 
Just my two knuts.
 
Petra
a
n  :)