A PRIORI V A POSTERIORI

What do A posteriori arguments start with?

Physical evidence in the world to come to conclusion.

What do A posteriori argument suffer with?

Suffer with issues of interpretation-experiences can be interpreted differently

What would best prove God’s existence?

A priori arguments as it produces a lack of doubt- logical proofs are difficult to contradict

Why is it argued that A priori arguments are stronger?

1. Our experience can deceive us- influenced by other factors

2. Experiences and observations of the world are unreliable- only pure forms of logic can be reliable

3. A priori arguments work with defined terms and so the logic is easier to follow through

Why is it argued that A posteriori arguments are better?

1. You cannot know the nature of God so cannot follow Anselms argument through (Aquinas)

2. Hume rejected the ontological argument because you cannot think of a being that cannot not exist- you can imagine God not existing because we haven’t experienced him

3. People naturally work from Experience first

4. Gods work should be evident in the world somehow

5. Human logic can never fully understand God