There are two types of arguments to address the existence of God. A posteriori argumentation involves defining things based on the premises of what is true according to our own experiences. This is the idea that we cannot know what is true unless we experience it using our five senses: sight, smell, hearing, touch, etc. This type of truth, according to the book Core Questions in Philosophy written by Elliot Sober, is an a posteriori truth, which is "that which requires the experience to be known (or justified)" (84). The a priori argument is a conclusion based on understanding of the concept, not on prior or innate experience. It can be argued that their preposition is a priori even if they have no innate knowledge or experience of the subject, provided they understand the concept. This approach does not take into account any observation or experience, just the definition given to the subject. (Sober 85) Originally formulated by Saint Anslem, the ontological argument is defined as (1) God is by definition the greatest possible being. (2) A being who fails to exist in the actual world (while existing in other possible worlds) is less perfect than a being who exists in all possible worlds. (Fundamental Questions in Philosophy, 86) The basis of the ontological argument “often does not deal directly with perfect beings, beings beyond which no greater can be conceived, etc. ; rather, they deal with descriptions, ideas, concepts, or the possibility of the existence of these things” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). That is, this argument states what God is and then asks whether he exists. Sober states that “the ontological argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument” (85). And we can establish the truth of theism without an a posteriori premise. This...... middle of paper...... proof of its existence can be through miracles or signs from God in our life. The way we can reason our argument for the existence of God is through things like near-death experiences where we can see or hear God and affirm that he is real. Because not everyone has these experiences, we can only reason about the existence of God based on scholars' definitions or individual experiences that only oneself can judge to be valid. This is why I believe that the argument for the existence of God must be formulated individually, based on one's own experience, and must not be generalized by a single concept or argument. Works cited Oppy, G. 2009. “Ontological arguments”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Sober, E. 2009. Fundamental Questions in Philosophy. Prentice Hall. Chapter 8.