Statements are always considered to be either a form of literal or analogical symbolism. The former appears when the statement is related directly to a real object met in nature. The latter appears chiefly in religious statements in which the object to which the statement refers is a thing outside of nature. In such statements we comprehend that the word is drawing an analogy between a natural object and an object outside of nature which is neither entirely like, nor entirely not like the natural object. We understand that whilst two objects are not the same, there are real points of similarity. For instance, when we say that God is our Father, we do not have in view that he is biologically answerable for our existence nor that he is like our own fathers. What we say is that he is analogous to our fathers in that he is answerable for our existence and provides for us in a way that is similar to the human fathers.
Any given statement can be either priori or reasonable. A priori statements are those whose truth values do not depend on the validity of a logical deduction. A priori statements are not reasoned to, on the contrary we reason from them. There are no prerequisites which arouse them. Rather, they are the prerequisites upon which all other deductions depend on. Since such statements are not the result of the deductive reasoning, we can not logically define the truth values of a priori statements. The only way for the establishment of the truth value of an a priori statement is to assess the degree to which the reality appears to coincide with valid deduction from such statements.
Andrew
Original source: http://www.articlesbase.com/college-and-university-articles/types-of-symbolism-and-a-priori-statements-213834.html
