Critically assess the view that an a posteriori argument is more convincing than an a priori
argument.
Introduction
Define: A prior- Based on reason. A posteriori- Based on experience.
Importance: Sets precedent for what philosophers to prioritise when trying to prove the existence of
God, a priori or a posteriori arguments.
Scholars: Aquinas, Paley, Anselm, Plantinga
Conclusion: A posteriori arguments are more convincing than a priori arguments.
Paragraph 1
Point: A posteriori arguments are more convincing than a priori arguments.
Argument: Aquinas Fifth Way: P1: Natural bodies act towards an end – act with a purpose. P2: These
must be directed by an intelligent being to achieve their purpose (Arrow and archer). C1: There is an
intelligent being who directs things to their end. C2: God is this intelligent being.
Counterargument: Like Causes and Like Effects: We cannot move from an effect to a cause greater
than that needed to produce the effect, e.g. Hume’s scales example. Inductive leap to God when
other answers fit too! The universe could be the necessary being as it fits as a conclusion of the
argument and meets all the set rules, so it does not need to be God > RUSSELL’S ‘brute fact’: “The
universe is just there, and that is all.”
Paragraph 2
Point: A priori arguments are not more convincing because the premises in the argument are
debateable and questionable.
Argument: Anselm unsuccessfully attempts to create an ontological argument to prove the existence
of God which Gaunilo debunks by criticising his attempt to define God into existence.
Anselm’s First form argument (Proslogion, 1077-8): Premise 1- God is that than which no greater can
be conceived. Premise 2- It is greater to exist in reality as well as in the mind. Conclusion: Hence
there is no doubt there exists a being than that which no greater can be conceived and it exists in
reality and in the mind.
Example: What would be greater, they say- a huge heap of cash that exists in your imagination only
or on your kitchen table.
Counterargument: Gaunilo was Christian but thought Anselm’s argument was illogical. He swapped
the idea of God with an Island. ‘In Behalf of the Fool’ (1078), he said with such an argument you can
define anything into existence- ‘Imagine a perfect island that than which no greater can be
conceived. If you wanted to go to it, it will not be there.
, Counterargument (to First Counterargument): Anselm- God is independent and necessary, Islands
are dependent and contingent. Plantinga (20th Century) supports Anselm by saying that islands have
no intrinsic maximums, you could always add one more ‘dancing girl’.
Paragraph 3
Point: A posteriori arguments are more convincing than a priori arguments.
Argument: The world works as a machine. It is constructed and predictable – so compares world to a
watch. As a watch has a watch-maker, the world must have a world-maker. Our inference is valid
even if we haven’t seen a watch before. It is so different from the rock, it must have a different
origin. Even if the watch does not work perfectly, there is enough evidence of design to deduce a
watchmaker. Our inference would be correct even if there were parts of the machine whose
function we could not work out- Paley’s watch analogy.
Counterargument: Hume’s criticism: There is no way to prove causality, sometimes it just appears to
be caused, e.g. when you hail a bus, the bus stops, but the act of waving your hand doesn’t actually
cause the bus to stop. Additionally, we have no experience of universe being made. We know about
causes within the universe but that does not entitle us to move to a cause of the universe as a
whole. This is a fallacy of composition which suggests it is an error to look for an explanation of
something as a whole when we can provide an exploration of the parts.
argument.
Introduction
Define: A prior- Based on reason. A posteriori- Based on experience.
Importance: Sets precedent for what philosophers to prioritise when trying to prove the existence of
God, a priori or a posteriori arguments.
Scholars: Aquinas, Paley, Anselm, Plantinga
Conclusion: A posteriori arguments are more convincing than a priori arguments.
Paragraph 1
Point: A posteriori arguments are more convincing than a priori arguments.
Argument: Aquinas Fifth Way: P1: Natural bodies act towards an end – act with a purpose. P2: These
must be directed by an intelligent being to achieve their purpose (Arrow and archer). C1: There is an
intelligent being who directs things to their end. C2: God is this intelligent being.
Counterargument: Like Causes and Like Effects: We cannot move from an effect to a cause greater
than that needed to produce the effect, e.g. Hume’s scales example. Inductive leap to God when
other answers fit too! The universe could be the necessary being as it fits as a conclusion of the
argument and meets all the set rules, so it does not need to be God > RUSSELL’S ‘brute fact’: “The
universe is just there, and that is all.”
Paragraph 2
Point: A priori arguments are not more convincing because the premises in the argument are
debateable and questionable.
Argument: Anselm unsuccessfully attempts to create an ontological argument to prove the existence
of God which Gaunilo debunks by criticising his attempt to define God into existence.
Anselm’s First form argument (Proslogion, 1077-8): Premise 1- God is that than which no greater can
be conceived. Premise 2- It is greater to exist in reality as well as in the mind. Conclusion: Hence
there is no doubt there exists a being than that which no greater can be conceived and it exists in
reality and in the mind.
Example: What would be greater, they say- a huge heap of cash that exists in your imagination only
or on your kitchen table.
Counterargument: Gaunilo was Christian but thought Anselm’s argument was illogical. He swapped
the idea of God with an Island. ‘In Behalf of the Fool’ (1078), he said with such an argument you can
define anything into existence- ‘Imagine a perfect island that than which no greater can be
conceived. If you wanted to go to it, it will not be there.
, Counterargument (to First Counterargument): Anselm- God is independent and necessary, Islands
are dependent and contingent. Plantinga (20th Century) supports Anselm by saying that islands have
no intrinsic maximums, you could always add one more ‘dancing girl’.
Paragraph 3
Point: A posteriori arguments are more convincing than a priori arguments.
Argument: The world works as a machine. It is constructed and predictable – so compares world to a
watch. As a watch has a watch-maker, the world must have a world-maker. Our inference is valid
even if we haven’t seen a watch before. It is so different from the rock, it must have a different
origin. Even if the watch does not work perfectly, there is enough evidence of design to deduce a
watchmaker. Our inference would be correct even if there were parts of the machine whose
function we could not work out- Paley’s watch analogy.
Counterargument: Hume’s criticism: There is no way to prove causality, sometimes it just appears to
be caused, e.g. when you hail a bus, the bus stops, but the act of waving your hand doesn’t actually
cause the bus to stop. Additionally, we have no experience of universe being made. We know about
causes within the universe but that does not entitle us to move to a cause of the universe as a
whole. This is a fallacy of composition which suggests it is an error to look for an explanation of
something as a whole when we can provide an exploration of the parts.
