>>3951329Inductive reasoning involves looking at examples and coming up with a general rule. For example, we go through life seeing only black ravens. So, we conclude that all ravens are black. However, one day, we see a white raven, and realize we had only assumed that all ravens were black. We hadn't actually seen every raven in the universe and throughout all time, so we couldn't say for sure that all ravens were black. And, it turned out, we were wrong.
Every creature prior to the current living generation of creatures has died, so far as we know. But that gives us no information about whether or not every creature currently living will eventually die. We cannot draw any rational conclusions about what we have no observed.
Inductive reasoning is the basis of all science. And, it has worked pretty well, so far, even without a rational basis. But, just because it has worked pretty well so far doesn't mean it will always work. Again, we can't make conclusions about what we haven't observed, or use circular logic to justify inductive reasoning.
We have no more reason to believe that everyone now living will die than we have to believe that not everyone now living will die.
