Anselm's Proof Vs Priori Proof
1. What is the difference between a priori proof of God's existence and a posteriori one? What makes St. Anselm's proof an a priori proof? What makes St. Thomas's five proofs posterior?
The difference between a priori and a posteriori proof is based off of knowledge that is independent of experience or reasoning that is dependent upon experience. An a prior proof is an ontological argument which is the study of being; a subset of metaphysics. Also an a prior proof would lack experience to be justified. Saint Anselm’s proof is categorized as a priori proof because his proof began with a concept of the greatest conceivable being that is independent of experience that was just an understanding of the mind. Whereas Saint Thomas’s a posteriori proof pertains to knowledge that is dependent upon experience; in contrast to that which is a …show more content…
Why does Kierkegaard deny that God's existence can be proven? Do you agree with him? Defend your answer.
Soren Kierkegaard a Danish Christian Existentialist who is known as the Father of Existentialism denies that anyone can prove God’s existence because he believes in investigation of nature of existence. He questions what it means for humans to be (exist). He also exemplifies his stand point by stating “I do not, for example, prove that a stone exist, but that some existing thing is a stone” (531). I agree with him in the since that proving Gods existence is best done by trying to disprove it. In his writing this was best understood for me by his statement “For if God does not exist it would be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it” (530-531). Similar tactics are shown when dealing with scientific methods. He brings to light the point that a man who can profess that god does exist and believes he can prove it is a bold one. This is because he has very little (if anything) to go off of especially if god truly does not exist. If god were to not exist, he would essentially be chasing a
The difference between a priori and a posteriori proof is based off of knowledge that is independent of experience or reasoning that is dependent upon experience. An a prior proof is an ontological argument which is the study of being; a subset of metaphysics. Also an a prior proof would lack experience to be justified. Saint Anselm’s proof is categorized as a priori proof because his proof began with a concept of the greatest conceivable being that is independent of experience that was just an understanding of the mind. Whereas Saint Thomas’s a posteriori proof pertains to knowledge that is dependent upon experience; in contrast to that which is a …show more content…
Why does Kierkegaard deny that God's existence can be proven? Do you agree with him? Defend your answer.
Soren Kierkegaard a Danish Christian Existentialist who is known as the Father of Existentialism denies that anyone can prove God’s existence because he believes in investigation of nature of existence. He questions what it means for humans to be (exist). He also exemplifies his stand point by stating “I do not, for example, prove that a stone exist, but that some existing thing is a stone” (531). I agree with him in the since that proving Gods existence is best done by trying to disprove it. In his writing this was best understood for me by his statement “For if God does not exist it would be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it” (530-531). Similar tactics are shown when dealing with scientific methods. He brings to light the point that a man who can profess that god does exist and believes he can prove it is a bold one. This is because he has very little (if anything) to go off of especially if god truly does not exist. If god were to not exist, he would essentially be chasing a