how persuasive are posteriori arguments?

Created by: lizzlemanizzle
Created on: 29-05-19 16:05

what is the immediate appeal about posteriori arguments

we can verify it for ourselfves,

1 of 11

how does this help the posteriori argments for the existence of god

these arguments start in an area most of us can accept becase we use our senses and percieved the things the argument describes

2 of 11

why does this not work for teleological arguments

we are only going to follow this arguement if we agree with the observation being made

3 of 11

what is an example of this

the world is orderly and therefore an intelligent designer mustve created it, not everyone believes the world is orderly

4 of 11

what does ersuasiveness rely on in a posteriori argument

the quality of hypotheical reasoning, if its the best amongts all the possible explanations,

5 of 11

what is hypothetical reasoning?

gives us info based on observation and offer the most plausible explanation

6 of 11

what is an example of this

chocolate missing, think of all the possibile explanations why ist missing

7 of 11

what are the qualities in which a good hypothetical reaosn has

introduces the fewest extra assumptions in order to explain - ohkams razor. if it fits best with what i already know often happens, matches other evidence availible to us

8 of 11

why is it good for the hypothetical reasoning to introduce the least amount of extra assumptions

if we were to assume that we bought evaporating chocolate it we have to further assume thatsuch a kind were to be invented too many assumption

9 of 11

why is it food for hypothetical reasoning to bestfit with what we already know

this is what the cosmological argument struggles with: we dont know how universes are actually cause, thinking that the chocolate evaporates is implausible because it doesnt fit with my previous experience with chocolate

10 of 11

why is it food for hypothetical reasoning to match other evidence we have availavble

if i thought a burglar stole it, it doesnt match with evidence that the burlgar didnt steal jewelrry/neighbours didnt see. doesnt match with other evidence

11 of 11

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

how does this help the posteriori argments for the existence of god

Back

these arguments start in an area most of us can accept becase we use our senses and percieved the things the argument describes

Card 3

Front

why does this not work for teleological arguments

Back

Card 4

Front

what is an example of this

Back

Card 5

Front

what does ersuasiveness rely on in a posteriori argument

Back

View more cards

Get Revising

how persuasive are posteriori arguments?