A Posteriori VS A Priori

Question 1

A posteriori vs A priori - Intro

Answer 1

when presenting logical arg 2 meths, although arrive at same broad, ways to get there diff 🔑 to understand either success, A post beings w appearance then ✏️concs, A priori deduces entirely sep from exp, working def outwards, understand G def understand he exists.
despite seemingly, neither closer

Question 2

A posteriori vs a priori - P1

Answer 2

some argue A PRI more persuasive as based on logic thus offers clear…. all understand logic not all draw same concs from empirical ev
Eg ANSELM ONTO - 1st argues atheist+theist same (TTWN..)

Immediate fault- ❌same! wrongly assumes
MAIN FLAW- next premise in intellectu vs re
Kant succ disproves w 100 thalers 💰-need exp to distinguish
using Ks logic- God exists and not= same
CONSEQ PROVING A’S LOGIC AS NOT PROVING A THING!😶

tfore proposed :) of logic —- fails massively. purely consists of faulty assumptions and leaps

Question 3

A posteriori vs A priori - P2

Answer 3

NONETHELESS others- A post. one arrives at conc through exp and eval rather than uncertain prem
AQ- C+E cannot go back 🔃tfore special case needed

HUME- Q if we can make jump. C+E psych concept so cannot make🔗beyond exp

CA- creation of uni special event, why shouldn’t….??

CR-✏️back to Hume- we have not exp uni creation, tfore cannot PROVE EMPIRICALLY
Hume-succ demonstrates cannot use ob- Aq wrongly jumped to decs far beyond exp🌏

Question 4

A posteriori vs A priori - P3

Answer 4

YET ULT- more plausible…. NEITHER prove or disprove
VAL 🛌💤on ones understanding+belief in G -base🙏🏽than theo
Aq- atheist and theist, OBVIOUS diff upmost sig
so although not persuasive, 💵💵purpose!
Anselm- “credo ut intelligam” valuable to strengthen w reasoned args but pure reason alone not sub for commitment!!!