discussion question

• How persuasive are a posteriori arguments?

  • YES ]- draw our attention so something we can see for ourselves, used our senses and perceived it, natural world seems orders and thus should stem from an intellectual being
  • NO ]- involves hypothetical reasoning that offers a hypothesis that to religious people seems plausible, few extra assumptions (Ockham's razor)
• Can teleological arguments be defended by the challenge of 'chance'?

  • apparent order occurred by chance
  • Darwins theory of evolution which is an alternative theories
  • Tennant - anthropic principle - that the universe seems structures
  • our world is imperfect - imperfect creator
• Do cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator without sufficient explanation?

  • different possible explanations
  • arguments only demonstrate God Hypothesis - not proof that it was God
  • necessary existence of a transcendent God
• Do arguments from observation present logical fallacies which cannot be overcome?

  • depends on a posteriori knowledge
  • people have different experiences
  • involve too many assumptions