4.6 Comparing a priori a! arguments “The two chapters on the existence of God F arguments, A posteriori argument world to come to conclusions, wherea separately o experience. IFit were possi (1 priori then there would be a lack of doubt ~ mathematics, ae dificult to contradict. A poster of interpretation ~ experiences ca day at the moment, but a priori ars Comarca Our experience can always deceive us. For example, we may be unwell or psychological Le es stare with physical oO God's existence eriori argu! 1 you may disagree: very different idence in the jeduce entirely prete ‘Aquinas rejected 2 Pp argumen, because you cannot know the nature of Goa. cannot follow Anselm's argument through factors might influence us A priori arguments work within defined terms and 0 the logic is easier to follow through Modern forms of the ontological argument are more convincing than traditional ones Hume rejected the ontological argument bers you cannot think of a being that cannot not ex you can always think of that being not existing would need to experience it first People naturally work from experience first Experiences and observations of the world are unreliable and only pure logic can be reliable Ttis likely that God's handiwork would be evi the world around us in some way There are, of course, a number of similarities we can draw on. Both styles of argument are just that ~ philosophical arguments. Whatever their starting points, the internal coherence of the arguments need to be assessed. A posteriori arguments are accused of containing logical fallacies 38 much as ontological arguments, Equally, what might be a leap in logic for one person might not be for another. The alternative approach is to see all the argument aspect of the same job — like looking at something aera angles, Ifthe starting point is that iis impossible lly to know God is beyond description, then the arguments can be seen as limited seve t understanding God. However, the philosopher Antony Flew pe if out Some would reject arguments as a whole because any use of log logic t logic cannot ever fully undo. t leaky bucket: xistence? 9 Who suggested that ten l flawed do not prove his S do not h Old Wate, "50 ten arguments for God's existence [Revisiontactivity]| Try to rank order the arguments for each of a priori and a posterior: thought. Does one com: as more convincing tha other? ESE fg | Look at the difference | between natural and | revealed theology in th | Developments in Chris! Thought book, Chapter — fo ee