Tag Vs. Tang [Archive I]

Dulos

September 7, 2006, 03:11 PM

Dulos,

In what way do you think that Bansen's arguments are any more salient than other arguments that have been presented repeatedly here?

I'm all ears: regardless of prior discussions having covered most of the ground, I'll be happy have a TAG discussion with you if that's what you want.

Please either present Bahnsen's arguments as you see them, and we can have a go.

Alethias.

I am not a die hard TAG'er and doubt that I could present faithfully. But here goes a shot.

From what I understand, the TAG argument argues for the Christian God. Not just theism in general but Christian Theism. Second, it argues that all worldviews begin with presuppositions. What TAG does is it shows the impossiblity of the contrary. For an atheist to claim morals, logic,rationalism and etc. they are not remaining consistant with their worldview. The atheist does not have a consistant foundation. If an atheist wants to enter a theological debate with the Christian about the character of God, then it can only be answered from the Christian's presupposition and worldview. The TAG does not really provide "evidence" b/c from its perspective there is evidence, its just that man has rejected it. Overall, carm.org put it pretty well...

The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

Well that is it in a nutshell, I know for sure that other can present it much more intelligent, but what TAG points out for me is that in an atheistic worldview, it cannot claim to have logic, rationalism,morals and etc.. Logic just cannot "happen", it had to have come from somewhere by an intelligent being.

Hope that made since

In Christ

Dulos

Alethias

September 7, 2006, 04:15 PM

I am not a die hard TAG'er and doubt that I could present faithfully. But here goes a shot. I'm not the best debater here, so we're probably pretty evenly matched.From what I understand, the TAG argument argues for the Christian God.I agree that its intent is to validate Christian Theism as the only choice. Second, it argues that all worldviews begin with presuppositions. I agree that all worldviews start with axiomatic premises. I'm not sure I like the word 'presupposition'What TAG does is it shows the impossiblity of the contrary. For an atheist to claim morals, logic,rationalism and etc. they are not remaining consistant with their worldview.O really? How exactly does it show that? I've seen this claimed. The atheist does not have a consistant foundation. I would agree that some atheists don't have a consistent foundation for their beliefs. But atheism is not a belief system. I'm a philosophical naturalist with strong ties to humanism for moral structures. If you talk to any 2 atheists you're gonna get variations of beliefs. If an atheist wants to enter a theological debate with the Christian about the character of God, then it can only be answered from the Christian's presupposition and worldview. But at this level, we're not talking about the character of god. We're talking about the Existence of god. I don't have to accept the christians axiomatic viewpoint to talk about the existence of god.The TAG does not really provide "evidence" b/c from its perspective there is evidence, its just that man has rejected it.I've never seen evidence for the existence of god that is not more readily explained by concluding that it's really not evidence for the existence of god.Overall, carm.org put it pretty well...sorry, but I'm not a fan of carm.org. I don't really think they do a good job at all. But they probably do a good job of helping christians stay faithful.Well that is it in a nutshell, I know for sure that other can present it much more intelligent, but what TAG points out for me is that in an atheistic worldview, it cannot claim to have logic, rationalism,morals and etc.. Logic just cannot "happen", it had to have come from somewhere by an intelligent being. Why can't it just happen? Logic is the byproduct of consciousness/awareness. Consciousness and self-awareness developed in man over the course of millenia because it gives us an evolutionary advantage. Of course it can just happen.

That's not really your toughest nut to crack though. Does intelligence have to be created by intelligence? If so, where did gods intelligence come from? If gods intelligence didn't have to be created, why not, and why is mine different, requiring creation? Does god have logic? If so, where does god's logic come from? TAG presupposes the existence of intelligence and consciousness in god and claims that gods intelligence and consciousness pre-exists all other intelligence, but provides no explanation to why this is needed. Why is it valid to assume the primacy of consciousness over existence? Why is it not better to assume the primacy of existence over consciousness?

Hope that made sinceIt made sense in that I believe I understand your words, but it doesn't make sense in the respect that it is not an adequate explanation of existence. sorry.

In Christ

Dulos:wave:

Alethias

Sarpedon

September 7, 2006, 04:42 PM

Well that is it in a nutshell, I know for sure that other can present it much more intelligent, but what TAG points out for me is that in an atheistic worldview, it cannot claim to have logic, rationalism,morals and etc.. Logic just cannot "happen", it had to have come from somewhere by an intelligent being.

Hope that made since

In Christ

Dulos

Another theist who ignores the fact that his religion is a paltry 2000 years old. Sorry my friend, logic was formalized before there was such a person as christ, and people knew the difference between right and wrong for thousands of years before anyone made up your god. To claim that religion is the source of morals and logic ignores the fact that all religions currently practiced have been around for only mere fractions of the time that mankind has. Even chimpanzees and gorillas have semblence of moral behavior. The fact that morals were invented by humans does not mean that they are valueless, as many religious people declare in an attempt to frighten people into believing and to slander atheists. It is as absurd to say that as it would be to say that the Sears Tower is valueless because it was made by humans. If you truely believe that things made by people are valueless, let me know when you are having your next garage sale.

I believe it was Dawkins who pointed out that if natural laws were only the result of the will of some maker, then we could expect to see MORE events that vary from them, instead of seeing none at all. Think about it. The bible is full of stories of miracles, which are events that deviate from natural laws. However, in REAL LIFE, nothing ever happens that deviates from the natural laws. People don't really come back from the dead. A human being cannot walk on water. You can't turn a stick into a snake, etc. Presumably, the one who made the laws can change them at any time, to suit his purposes, and if you believe the bible stories, he does this frequently. Yet no examples of this have been seen outside of anecdote.

TAG assumes that the existance of order requires the existance of a concious entity to establish it. Why? Look in your salt shaker. Every little bit of salt is a near perfect little cube. Do you think that there exists a person in the salt factory with a tiny chisel who sculpts them like that? OR that the salt is cut into tiny cubes when still soft from the oven, like buillon? No. Salt is cubic because thats the natural order of its crystal fracture pattern. No sculptor required.

And anyway, you claim simple things like order, morals and logic can't 'just happen' but a super duper transparent all knowing all wise deity can 'just happen?' Where does your immensely improbable being come from if such mundane things such as atomic structure can't arise spontaneously?

You also say 'the laws of logic are absolute.' therefore god exists (paraphrase). No and no. First off, you can't conclude that god exists because logic exists until you first establish that logic was created by god, which to do so requires you to prove god in the first place. Get off the reasoning carousel. Secondly, the laws of logic arent' perfect. If you start with flawed premises you get flawed conclusions. If logic were perfect this wouldn't be possible. Logic is limited by our own knowledge, our own thought processes, and by our ability to perceive the world around us. Logic is flawed, why? because it was made by humans, not god. When we are thinking clearly, it is a wonderful tool. If one is thinking incorrectly, it is the knife that stabs its owner.

So as to your claims as to the 'impossibility of the opposing view' I think I've dealt with them all:
Where does order come from? the physical properties of matter.
Morals? Humans invented them.
Logic? Humans invented it.

There no need for your god. And no need to borrow from your christian worldview. After all, your christian worldview is a mere 2000 years old. If I absolutely need to borrow from a previous worldview, I have many older and more pragmatic civilizations to choose from. Just because one middle eastern cult has grown to be the world's most influential ideology (and christianity certainly is, for now) doesn't mean that its true, or its the only source of culture, or its the oldest religion, or that it will be around for ever. Religions come, and then they go. There were atheists before there were christians, and there will be atheists after the bible is put on the mythology shelf between the Bhagavad Gita and the Book of Mormon.

pharoah

September 7, 2006, 06:42 PM

Hedshaker

September 7, 2006, 07:46 PM

David B

September 7, 2006, 07:51 PM

Some years ago I came across the TAG v TANG debate, and gave some attention to it.

I don't recall the details, but I do remember coming to the conclusion that TAG and TANG were logically equivalent, and neither of them worked.

If anyone thinks that they have said something that might change my mind, either way, please PM me.

David B

Cheerful Charlie

September 7, 2006, 09:50 PM

I am still very new to this thread and don't really know how these things work. I am trying to still figure it out. However as I was reading, I have seen creationism attacked over and over again. Or the ID'ers attacked over and over again. However I have not found anything refuting Dr. Greg Bahnsen's TAG argument. So I was given the advice a few weeks ago to start a thread on the TAG argument and I guess it would be destroyed.

Also, has anyone besides Michael Martin responded to this argument. I have the debate on tape where he never showed up to debate Bahnsen. I've heard different reasons why he never showed up, either way, he didn't show up so I never heard him interact with Bahnsen while he was still alive. Is there anything out there besides TANG that has refuted Bahnsen's argument. I have heard all of his debates, and I am lost, this guy goes way over my head. Sadly I've seen people call Bahsnen an idiot, and other not so kinds words, but have never refuted his argument. What is the answer to the TAG?

In Christ

Dulos

TAG argues that god must be the ground of ethics et al.

An example of the TAG can be formulated with regard to moral absolutes. The TAG asserts an omnibenevolent God whose own character is the basis for the predication of right and wrong to any thought or action. In creation he has equipped man to be a moral being, and in his self-revelation he reveals how man should act, and commands him to do so. Thus, man has an absolute standard of morality by which to condemn evil thoughts and actions (or commend good ones).

It is argued that the moral relativist, by contrast, cannot condemn theft, rape or genocide (nor commend generosity, marriage, or the preservation of life) without exposing his reliance on the very assumption of absolute morality which he claims to reject.

The problem is, Christianity isn't really very moral, nor is god.
The teachings of Jesus are slim and the teachings of the OT pretty awful mainly.
Kill the Cannanites, the Midianites et al.
Marriage is barely mentioned in the OT, but pages are wasted telling how to hang the
curtains of the tabernacle. The history of Christainity is bluntly, bad.

Basically all that is good and moral came from man, not god, not the bible because men got
tired of a bad life with bad laws and bad institutions.

Only people who know little history would fall for TAG.
Not when you look at the religious wars of the 1500s for example.

Real morals come from experience man has with periods where morals are not existant.
man has long been working upwards towards a moral life, Aristotle wrote the first book
on ethics and morals leaning heavily on Socrates, as did Plato. Thinkers from the Greeks on
gave us moralists like the Stoics and Epicureans.

Real morality as we know it is new, a product of the Enlightenment, of thinkers like Locke
and Kant and Hume and others.
And the reining in of religion starting with the French and American revolutions, followed be
revolutions in South America and Mexico.

TAG is an argument for historical naifs.

Again, the Bible, basis for TAG arguments makes some commands on us.
Acts 2 and 4 show us god commanded we live in communist communities.
No TAGists take god and the Holy Ghost seriously as per Acts 4.
Nor sell all the have as per Luke 12, or forsake all they own as per Luke 14.
Nor hate their families as per Luke 14.
Nor pray in private as pe Matthew 6 and hold all teh law of the Torah as still in
place as per Matthew 5.

One can then note TAGists are not consistant nor take their own basic arguments
seriously, so we don't have to either.

Ethics and morals do not come from the bible, Buhddists have exemplarary
ethics long before Jesus, atheistic Confucians long before the OT.

The second part of TAG is the idea god exists.

This is also rather shaky. I have developed and argument, omnigenesius.
It notes if god is omnsicient, omnibenevolent and creates all,
he creates all.

If god decides to create a Universe, he being omniscient
knows all it will have in the future from the staring initial conditions
of his universe to be.

God thus would know in 13 billion years a man named John Smith will
commit rape murder of a 12 year old child. God must at that point
make a serious decision. "Do I allow this rape murder of a 12 year old
child to occur or not?".

If such occurs it is only because God personally and purposefull decided to
have that act in the Universe he is about to create.

All acts of ours are thus scrutinized and allowed or disallowed, and since
god creates the initial coditions of that universe he knows and controls
all that happens in his Uiniverse to te last atom to the last second of time.

All our acts are thus created by god to the last degree.

Omni - genesis, creation of all.
God creates all, we have no free will at all.

Thus all rapes, murders and torture happen because god wants
these specific acts to occur and creates them to te last atom and last second
of all acts like this.

Thus god that is defined as all good and creates all and is omniscient
cannot exist because it is a contradictory concept all evil created by god
cannot be allowed if god is good.

God cannot exist, TAG is irrelevant.
Omni-genesis is MY strong atheist's 16 ton weight dropped Monty Python
style on theism's bad arguments.

A god that thus has to create all, every act we do, the last inclination
and thought we have creates all acts. We have no free will in any sense at all.
This world does not make sense.

A god that creates men evil and allegedly creates a hell to punish them forever in
eternal torament makes no sense.

A god that allegedly loves us and is merciful and is just and creates all evil acts from Hitler's
concentraton camps to every wanton act of rape, torture and murder that happens on a daily basis
is no a loving, caring, good, just, merciful god.

Its a lot like nothing at all.

Now, good, evil, sin, heaven, hell, god's love, reason, logic, morality, epistemology,
logic, nothing makes sense.

God that is omniscient, omnibenevolent and creates all drives us into metaphysical nihilsm,
total incoherence. Nothing atheism can say is as destructive of all as a god that creates all
and knows all. God is impossible. TAG is impossible.

What more can be said?

God is disprovable by my Omnigenesis argument and TAg and all other specious
theists ideas simply have no viable god to suck life from.

Cheerful Charlie

JLK

September 7, 2006, 11:29 PM

The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
What's wrong with: The naturalist worldview accounts for organisms' employment of the principles of logic by stating that they come from nature.
Nature is immanent; that is, it is all that exists.
Organisms employ the principles of logic because they are a reflection of nature, honed thru natural selection.
The principles of logic are pragmatically useful.
They are useful because nature has selected organisms that successfully employ them.
The christian worldview attempts to “account for” the principles of logic by shouting “Foundation of logic” and calling it God (in the same way a child might answer all the questions on her math test by writing “the correct answer” or someone ignorant of what powers locomotives shouts “force locomotief”), and circularly employs most of the naturalistic worldview to attempt to argue against it.

Dulos, I admire you coming here to discuss and learn. Take your time and keep an open mind.

As you likely know, the person who invented presuppositionalism was Bahnson's teacher, Calvinist Cornelius Van Til, who you should read. Van Til acknowledged it was a completely circular argument and did not think it could be used as a tool of evangelism because as a true Calvinist, only God's grace could beam into a fallen, corrupt unbeliever's mind and convince her of the truth of (his version of) Christianity. ("Those who disagree with me have clouded minds" is a neat way to win all arguments.) Although Van Til never claimed it would be an effective argument, in the hands of the next generation and their hothouse little circle they convinced themselves of its power and persuasiveness, perhaps because anyone who really challenges the TAG in a aggressive direct way is on a slippery slope to all sorts of potential heresy, so it's safer for more conservative fundagelical insiders to not batter it aggressively.

If you take a step back, you can see that this topic is about justifying the process of justification. That circularity should clue you into the insight that there is something a bit shady about all these arguments, TAG, TANG etc. They all come out of the framework of epistemological foundationalism. "Vee Must Haff Foundational Premises, the more Absolute the better!!"
In this absolute foundationalist framework, any premise that's truly foundational can have no justification. If it did, whatever justified it would be foundational, and on in an infinite regress. The only way to avoid this is to circularly grab a conclusion and call it a premise. This circularity can be done honestly and openly, as Van Til did, or sneakily, disguised under mountains of verbiage, as his acolytes do. But if circular arguments are acceptable, then all sorts of foundations are equally justifiable (whether nature or the IIDB's Transcendental Argument for Spencer, etc. as others have pointed out). And these claims all wind up shouting "X is the Foundation" without really explaining how the "foundation" connects up to the principles, essentially they all merely restate the problem by giving it a name and calling it the answer. (Not to mention adding unconnected stuff like all the Q'ran must then be true, Zeus must be personal, etc)

Unfortunately, many who argue against the TAG accept epistemological foundationalism, because we are trained in math, deduction, formal induction, etc. and that's how we make and win more narrow arguments. This makes for longer, more elaborate anti-TAG arguments.

The alternative to strict absolutist foundationalism is coherentism/pragmatism. Instead of foundationalism's tree that's rooted in, by definition, unjustifiable premises or dishonestly sneaking in circularity, imagine a web of beliefs, floating like a space station. Some of these are at the center of the web and thus are much more "foundational" in a sense, but all the beliefs together support each other and form a coherent, mutually supporting whole. All the beliefs are potentially fallible (which doesn't mean they are false). So far, this is explicitly circular and like foundationalism, there might many ways of making a coherent belief structure. The difference is pragmaticism. As the web is buffeted by experience, successful beliefs and belief structures are kept and others tossed (or their carriers killed).

This is why evolution and the mechanism of selection is such a threat to presuppers. Our reason and experience has discovered overwhelming evidence for biological and cultural evolution and selection mechanisms, and 4 billion years of evolution and selection explains the success and usefulness of our reason.
This still is circular in a sense, but rather than the sterile, vicious circularity of foundationalism (genuinely explaining nothing and never allowing core change), coherentism/pragmaticism is virtuously circular - more like a ever growing spiral. As nature constantly tests belief structures (and the neural nets, etc. they are "powered by") against experience, those that predict and explain are selected for. The degree of growth and fertility of the space station of beliefs (of an individual or collectively a larger culture) in the long-run is what ultimately justifies it's structure, not it's "infallible absolute foundations". This applies not just to knowledge but ethics as well.

This is a completely different way of looking at the subject. Presuppers demand "infallible absolute foundations" however. It's psychologically satisfying, and they just won't acknowledge that as finite humans their absolutist foundationalism won't quite achieve what they want, but it fits a strict Calvinist mindset well - God's Elect have the Truth. Read as many of the old threads as you can. Watch them argue and note their utter confidence while they avoid the symmetrical counter-arguments and hard questions.

Before Darwin and revolutions in math (non-Euclidiean geometry, etc), logic (Gödel etc) and physics, philosophy more or less took epistemological foundationalism for granted. Van Til, who was trained on older classical philosophers, was reacting to the failures of strict foundationalism which people in the late 19th and early 20th century were beginning to point out (like Nietzsche). "Since they're all circular, let's show the presupposition of Christianity is the most satisfying."

Just to point out pragmaticism is not some fringe view, here are some famed philosophers and some modern ones who've advocated something generally along these lines: Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey, Alexander Bain, George Mead, Josiah Royce, F.C.S. Schiller, C. I. Lewis, F. P. Ramsey, George Santayana, Alfred North Whitehead, W. V. O. Quine, Morton White, Wilfrid Sellars, Sidney Hook, Jürgen Habermas, Nelson Goodman, Hilary Putnam, Crispin Wright, Susan Haack, Nicholas Rescher. Even ol' Kant was haltingly beginning to get glimmerings of it.

In TAG's little camp of notables there's Bahnson, Frame and perhaps Plantinga. It seems to me many if not most noted christian philosophers remain Biblical evidentialists or fideists or use other classical philosophical arguments and don't push the TAG. Of course the low rent, throw-everything-and-see-what-converts sites like CARM never met a bad apologetic argument.

Bahnson did very good in a debate against someone that was more a scientist than a philosopher. His opponent probably wasn't well-enough prepared.This is a reference to a 20 year old debate, constantly touted by TAG advocates on the web, between Bahnson, a professional philosopher/epistemologist who devoted himself to the TAG, and a physiologist/librarian who came prepared for a broad general debate about theism but was pinned down by Bahnson to debating just the TAG. Justifying justification is not a topic for novices who are unprepared.

Cheerful Charlie

September 8, 2006, 06:20 AM

What's wrong with: The naturalist worldview accounts for organisms' employment of the principles of logic by stating that they come from nature.
Nature is immanent; that is, it is all that exists.
Organisms employ the principles of logic because they are a reflection of nature, honed thru natural selection.
The principles of logic are pragmatically useful.
They are useful because nature has selected organisms that successfully employ them.
The christian worldview attempts to “account for” the principles of logic by shouting “Foundation of logic” and calling it God (in the same way a child might answer all the questions on her math test by writing “the correct answer” or someone ignorant of what powers locomotives shouts “force locomotief”), and circularly employs most of the naturalistic worldview to attempt to argue against it.
**************

This is a completely different way of looking at the subject. Presuppers demand "infallible absolute foundations" however. It's psychologically satisfying, and they just won't acknowledge that as finite humans their absolutist foundationalism won't quite achieve what they want, but it fits a strict Calvinist mindset well - God's Elect have the Truth. Read as many of the old threads as you can. Watch them argue and note their utter confidence while they avoid the symmetrical counter-arguments and hard questions.

*************************************************************************

Imagine the most powerful god imaginable, the greatest thing imaginable.

A god that is not limited by logic is far more powerful than one that is.
A god that is not limited by logic and is all good can easily eliminate all moral evil.
That god can make man with a god-like free will and a god-like good nature incapable
of moral evil. Any possible complaints from theologians thisis not logically possibly can
be waved away, because god is above logic and not in anyway limited by logic.

Thus moral evil is impossible.
But moral evil exists.

So a god that is unlimited by logic cannot exist.

The most powerful god we can imagine is limited by logic, whatever that is.
God may or may not exist, but logic obviously does and will logically have to limit
the greatest god imaginable.

Thus logic is the most basic foundational absolute.

Logic then is the greatest thing imaginable, and is outside and beyond the greatest
god imaginable and cannot thus have been created by that god. Nor could god havre
created a Universe that has logic in it.

We cannot even imagine a god that is merciful, who loves us, who is all good,
who hates evil and is not limited by logic which is far greater than god.
The god of Bible and Quran are limited by logic and cannot then said to be
omnipotent either.

A Bible god or Quran god then cannot as defined, exist while logic must.

Try this out on a TAGist some day, some debate.
Logic is king of all, infallible, absolute, a foundation even the most
powerful god we can imagine is debunked by that logic in 45 seconds.

Maniacal laughter
:devil3:

Cheerful Charlie

Philosoft

September 8, 2006, 10:18 AM

From what I understand, the TAG argument argues for the Christian God. Not just theism in general but Christian Theism. Second, it argues that all worldviews begin with presuppositions. What TAG does is it shows the impossiblity of the contrary. For an atheist to claim morals, logic,rationalism and etc. they are not remaining consistant with their worldview. The atheist does not have a consistant foundation.
The TAG claims the impossibility of the contrary, but I don't recall seeing a proof. Usually, the TAGist resorts to a "show me a coherent alternative"-type of argument, which is decidedly not a proof of the positive conclusion that there are no possible contrary systems.

If an atheist wants to enter a theological debate with the Christian about the character of God, then it can only be answered from the Christian's presupposition and worldview.
Via reductio ad absurdum, that is.

The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
A statement which itself presupposes the logical axioms.

555

September 8, 2006, 01:48 PM

Imagine the most powerful god imaginable, the greatest thing imaginable.

STOP.
I won't allow you past this - the REST OF THE POST FAILS right here.
Right here you limit a god to your imagination and you've made no argument that your imagination can even begin to approach the actual.

Your imaginary god.
VS.
The actual god.

You might be able to refute your imaginary god but that god has nothing to do with the god of reality.

A god that is not limited by logic is far more powerful than one that is.

STOP.
Even though the rug has been pulled out from under this line of thinking I'll take out this point as well.

This point assumes that logic is a limitation.
This point assumes logic is an exterior standard.
This point assumes a 'greater' god than one that would be limited by logic could exist.

Those assumptions have not been granted to you.
The point is discarded because it does NOT FOLLOW.

A god that is not limited by logic and is all good can easily eliminate all moral evil.

STOP.
Even though the entire argument has already been shown to be invalid at point #1 and point #2 I'll refute this one in order to show that you've failed to make a single valid point as of yet.

You've not established anything whatsoever in that claim - how would you know that such a god could eliminate all moral evil if he's far beyond your imagination? Again, this is just an unfounded assumption that you make as you ramble on about a god defeated by the limitations of your imagination.

That god can make man with a god-like free will and a god-like good nature incapable of moral evil.
Any possible complaints from theologians thisis not logically possibly can be waved away, because god is above logic and not in anyway limited by logic.

The assumptions you make here have been shown to be unsubstantiated.

Thus logic is the most basic foundational absolute.

You've not shown this at all.
You've made several assumptions about the source of logic in order to get here.

Try this out on a TAGist some day, some debate.
Logic is king of all, infallible, absolute, a foundation even the most powerful god we can imagine is debunked by that logic in 45 seconds.

All you've done is show that you can use cicular reasoning to get to the point where you started.

If you'll review your assumptions from the start you'll see that you start off assuming logic is outside of god and that god must adhere to it. That is just another way of saying that logic is ultimately in control - or is the defacto god. It isn't suprising then that you reach the conclusion you pre-suppose.

555

September 8, 2006, 01:52 PM

Prof

September 8, 2006, 02:58 PM

Christian Presuppositionalism (CP) (and with it, the TAG) fails on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. But one thing I like to point out is that CP commits a sort of "No True Scotsman" fallacy, which I re-phrase as the "No True Evidence" or "No True Reasoning" fallacy.

CP, like so many philosophical systems, makes the claim of being the best explanation (best "account for" as CPers will put it) for human experience.

Note first that this makes human experience paramount to begin with. There must be some set of intelligible experience to account for in the first place. And this of course means a certain amount of assumptions (presuppositions in CP talk) already part of the mix (presuppositions that CPers refuse to acknowledge...because CP insists against human epistemological autonomy at any level).

So CP seeks to "account for" human experience, including the use of logic and reasoning. It does so by claiming the bible must be true, and building an epistemology from that assumption.

The problem is that it fails miserably to do so, because CP does such a poor and incomplete job of accounting for human experience. For instance, CP claims logic, induction and reasoning from experience is valid, and the Bible alone "accounts" for why it is valid. But then it goes on to reject or ignore whatever experience conflicts with the Bible.

One example is how the tenets of CP conflict with the findings of our most rigorous application of reasoning to our experience: Science.

Evidence and sound reasoning points to evolution, against the biblical account of human creation? "Well...we won't accept that because the bible must be right." All observation, logic and reason points to a universe and earth older than that depicted in the bible? "Well, that's obviously due to improper reasoning...it's ruled out by the fact the Bible MUST be used as a logical foundation."

This is what I mean by a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

CP: The Bible is the foundation for successfully explaining human experience and justifying the use of logic.

Atheist: But look, here experience and logic contradict the Bible.

CP: Then we deny the validity of that experience and logic, because as we said only the Bible successfully explains human experience and logic!

See the problem? The "No True Logic/Experience" fallacy.

Christian Presuppositionalism claims the Bible accounts for logic and human experience, but refuses admission of any human experience or application of logic that contradicts the Bible. So it clearly fails it's purported claim.

Prof.

Cheerful Charlie

September 8, 2006, 03:09 PM

STOP.
I won't allow you past this - the REST OF THE POST FAILS right here.
Right here you limit a god to your imagination and you've made no argument that your imagination can even begin to approach the actual.

Your imaginary god.
VS.
The actual god.

You might be able to refute your imaginary god but that god has nothing to do with the god of reality.

No, you stop right there.
Your 'god' is imaginary,
Omnigenesis shows gods cannot exist.

Actual god? Which actual god?
Allah?
Biblical god?
The gods of voodoo?
Before you can say actual god you have to be able to prove there is one.

What I did was this, imagine the most powerful god imaginable.
And showed logically, that god is impossible if you say the bible god or Brahmanic
god or Islamic god is outside and beyond logic and all good, all merciful, loves us,
is just et al.

That god cannot be.
Thus god must be subject to logic.

And thus logic is king of all, even the most powerful gods
that can be imagined.

STOP.
Even though the rug has been pulled out from under this line of thinking I'll take out this point as well.

This point assumes that logic is a limitation.
This point assumes logic is an exterior standard.
This point assumes a 'greater' god than one that would be limited by logic could exist.

Those assumptions have not been granted to you.
The point is discarded because it does NOT FOLLOW.
STOP.

I assume nothing. I take a possible set of situations and examine them
for sake of finding out if they are true. God is not limited/is limited by
logic. It turns out god must be.

I do NOT assume logic is exteriror.

If it is exterior god cannot be creator of the Universe.

But I will not grant YOU the claim logic is part of god!
Because that is impossible.

A house cannot be a necessary object, because it is made of things.
Bricks, lumber, roofing materials etc. These things must exist for the
house to exist, the house is contingent upon these things pre-existing it.

Thus this is a problem for theology, if god has qualities, essences,
Where do they come from and how are they combined to become what we call god?
God cannot be necessary! And it could be that things were different
and god was different!

Thus theologians cheat and say all god;s essences are one!

Thus if logic is an essence of god it is combined will al otgher essences.
These are not part of the Universe but of god.

If somehow logic eminates from god to the world at large it must then do
so as a whole, If the world is logical, it must also be intelligent, omnipotent.
omiscient and merciful, et al.

This is a ridiculous thing, a good reductio ad absurdum.

And again, we have gods nature being logic. If logic is part of him, it
binds god and limits god, Logic then is part of the limits of god, god
is not omnipotent.

Either he is limited by logic, or he can change his own essence, his logic and
enlarge it until it is not limit, even abandon it all together as a limit.
If in eliminationg evil, logic limits him somehow he can change it to not
limiting his action in eliminationg moral evil.

If not he is still limited and the most powerful god imaginable.
And thus not omnipotent!

Now we have a real problem. How does it work that god is limited by
hs ow nature to be under the severe limitations of logic?

Logic is stil foundational!

What is the meta-limits that make it impossible for god to abandon
all built in limits of logic?

This does not work. I will thus NOT allow you and theists to claim logic
is NOT outside god. You have to prove it! Not just claim it!

If logic is so powerful it limits god and is part of god, you have to explain THAT!

If god cannot change his own nature to remove internal limitations, logic,
You have to explain that!
There is one thing god cannot do, god is not as defined, omnipotent.

And where did this logic come from that is so powerful even god
must bend on humbled knee to it!

I for one will not give the theologians their dodge on the simplicity of
god ahat all his essences are one! This is sophistry.

Even though the entire argument has already been shown to be invalid at point #1 and point #2 I'll refute this one in order to show that you've failed to make a single valid point as of yet.

You've not established anything whatsoever in that claim - how would you know that such a god could eliminate all moral evil if he's far beyond your imagination? Again, this is just an unfounded assumption that you make as you ramble on about a god defeated by the limitations of your imagination.

No, I succeeded.
God must eliminate all evil if he is all powerful and all good.
A god that is not limited by logic can easily do that.
That god cannot exist because moral evil does in fact exist.

God this is limited by logic.
If that logic is outside god, he is secondary to logic.

If that limit is part of god;s essences it is still a limit,
and logic is king.

The bizarre sophistry of simplicity of god tells us that the Universe must
if it is logical because it is emanated from god, also omnipotent, omniscient
and intelligent having all essences of god because all esssences of god are one.

You are reduced to word magic. Empty claims.

The Easter Bunny waves her paw and magic happens!

The assumptions you make here have been shown to be unsubstantiated.

You've not shown this at all.
You've made several assumptions about the source of logic in order to get here.

All you've done is show that you can use cicular reasoning to get to the point where you started.

If you'll review your assumptions from the start you'll see that you start off assuming logic is outside of god and that god must adhere to it. That is just another way of saying that logic is ultimately in control - or is the defacto god. It isn't suprising then that you reach the conclusion you pre-suppose.

I make assumptions, provisionally for purposes of testing these assumptions
by seeing where they take us. A god not limited by logic is impossible.

Whether you argue logic is an outside limit or internal, it does not work.
God is limited by logic which is the basic absolute of all.

God is rather theoreical.
Logic is not.
If you argue logic is internal to god,
it is still a limit and we have to wonder where that logic
came from and why god cannot change his essences to
remove a limit.

We get into ridiculous assertions piled on assertions about god's
nature which drive us into large piles of special pleading.
None of them proven, all of them questionable.
All based on a god that is not a proven thing.

If god cannot change his own nature such that limits like
logic are eliminated as limits, then there is one thing god cannot do.
Remove his own limits. God is not omnipotent.
Define him as such and god is debunked by that contradiction.

We do not know if god esists.
We do know logic exists. And if god existed, logic limits that god anyway
you define logic, in or outside of god.

Logic is the only true, provable basic absolute.

:devil3:

More maniacal laughter.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie

September 8, 2006, 03:18 PM

Cheerful Charlie has been thoroughly refuted.

If logic is an expression of God's nature than He would be limited by is nature (which technically isn't a limitation, incidently) - that is to say, logic would be an attribute of God and not a standard to which He must adhere.

Because of this Cheerful Charlie's "chicken and egg" senerio is moot.
Because of this Cheerful Charlie's portrayal of logic as a standard to which God adheres is moot.
Because of this Cheerful Charlie's presuppositions about the 'creation' of logic is moot.

Acting within one's nature isn't an limitation.

Cheerful Charlie's base assumptions undermind the entire foundation for several type written pages of utter nonsense. In an anxious rush to 'one up' me he fails entirely to produce anything of substance.

A god that is beyond logic, not limited by logic hs no reasons for no to eliminating
all moral evil.
Moral evil exists.
A god not limited by logic is impossible.

Logic is king of all, master of all, even master of the most poweful god imaginable
It is the true basic absolute of all reality.

Imagining somehow this logic is part of god, does not remove the limit
and shows god is thus, not omnipotent, he cannot remove his own internal
limits, in this case, logic.

Logic is still basic, still king.

This draws attention to the ad hoc special pleading of the
doctrine of "god's simplicity" .

The ridiculous claim somehow logic is god's essence means
that since all essences of god must be one, the Universe
should not only be logical but intelligent, omniscient and omnipotent
and other ridiculous nonsense.

The simplicity of god shoots the idea that somehow logic
is part of god, down god and hard.

:devil3:

Cheerful Charlie

JLK

September 8, 2006, 03:20 PM

Logic is the only true, provable basic absolute.Which kind? Classical_logic, multi-valued_logic, intuitionist_logic, intermediate_logics, or probabilistic_logic?

And which logic do we use to "prove" it?

Cheerful Charlie

September 8, 2006, 03:31 PM

555

September 8, 2006, 03:41 PM

I agree charlie i was wrong :(

Cheerful Charlie

September 8, 2006, 05:39 PM

Which kind? Classical_logic, multi-valued_logic, intuitionist_logic, intermediate_logics, or probabilistic_logic?

And which logic do we use to "prove" it?

Again, imagine the greatest god imaginable.
A god not limited by logic is greater than a god that is.
With no limits by logic, a god that is all good can easily eliminate all evil

For example god can give man a god-like free will and a god-like good nature that
like god's good nature never does moral evil.
Any possible niggling problems this might seem to cuse can be eliminated by
tweaking logic to allow all possible logical objectons to this to be brushed aside.

Thus moral evil cannot exist.
But moral evil exists, god not limited by logic
then does not exist.

Thus logic is king. Logic is mightier and more basic, more absolute than
the greatest god we can imagine.

God must be limited by logic.

Do not ask me what this logic is, if it is one thing or many,
or where it comes from. I might answer you and we would be here
all year as I bloviate.

All I have done here is demonstrate basic, classical logic is more absolute
than any imaginable gods. Thus TAG that claims god is more
absolute than logic must be wrong.

The logic I use is simple basic logic. A 4" long stick is longer than a 2" long stick.
6 is more than 4 but less than 9.

A god that is all good and not limited by logic will result in a world where
there is no moral evil, if that god exists. Evil exists, a god
not limited by logic cannot exist.

We know logic exists. We don't know if god exists
(Actually I know god does not exist)..
We know if god exists, logic limits that god.

Therefore logic is greater than god, limits god and must be
far more absolute.

Welcome to the first Church of Logic, Reformed!
All hail Logic, our Lord and Savior!
All bow down and pass the collection plate.
TAG is heresy! Would the ushers please escort all TAGists out
of this Holy Temple of Logic!

Rev. Cheerful Charlie

555

September 8, 2006, 07:23 PM

Im confused... sorry because im soo new at logic.

It notes if god is omnsicient, omnibenevolent and creates all, he creates all.
By reading the rest of your post you seem to mean by the word 'creates' here that a god created all actions. You go on to try and prove that, let's see how you do.
If god decides to create a Universe, he being omniscient knows all it will have in the future from the staring initial conditions of his universe to be.
This would be true.
Foreknowledge, however, isn't the same as compulsion.
If we agree with that, we can continue.
God thus would know in 13 billion years a man named John Smith will commit rape murder of a 12 year old child. God must at that point make a serious decision. "Do I allow this rape murder of a 12 year old child to occur or not?".
That seems to follow so far.
If such occurs it is only because God personally and purposefull decided to have that act in the Universe he is about to create.
No.
There is a difference between purposely deciding to have and allowing.

All acts of ours are thus scrutinized and allowed or disallowed, and since god creates the initial coditions of that universe he knows and controls all that happens in his Uiniverse to te last atom to the last second of time.
Again, there is a difference between allowing something and sanctioning it. It is a substantive distinction and your omnigensis argument floats right by this point.
All our acts are thus created by god to the last degree.
In my honest opinion you've not shown this to be true by a long stretch. I don't know why, but for some reason it is common to skeptics to confuse the relationship between free will and omniscience.
Omni - genesis, creation of all.
God creates all, we have no free will at all.
Again, you've not shown that we are without free will.
Thus god that is defined as all good and creates all and is omniscient cannot exist because it is a contradictory concept all evil created by god cannot be allowed if god is good.
Evil wouldn't not have to be created by a god in order to exist.
Evil could be the absence of something else - just like darkness is something that doesn't exist, but instead, is the absence of light.
Omni-genesis is MY strong atheist's 16 ton weight dropped Monty Python style on theism's bad arguments.
Your omni-gensis is a rehash of the problem of evil.
While the argument can present some serious food for thought for a theist it is by no means a proof for the non-existence of a god.

In my honest opinion, trying to shoe horn it into a proof really undercuts it's effectiveness against the theist.

Dulos

September 9, 2006, 12:50 PM

Sorry I haven't responded as fast and as much as I would like. I have read the post and a lot has been said which gives me a lot to chew on. So I will respond pretty shortly, again sorry about that, I haven't ignored the thread or anything. Thanks for the feedback, gave me a lot to think about.

In Christ

Dulos

Hedshaker

September 9, 2006, 03:50 PM

In Christ

Dude, do you realise you'r on a secular/atheist board? Please dont take the piss! I would never go onto a Christian board and display such contempt for the regulars.

How would you feel if I ended all my posts with... Christ is a cunt?

Karen M

September 9, 2006, 07:59 PM

It doesn’t seem to be particularly offensive to me. It just seems like he is saying “I’m a Christian! Notice me! Whoo!!” at the end of all his posts.

If he was purposely trying to be hateful he would sign with the typical “Atheists are fools” or similar.

555

September 9, 2006, 09:34 PM

God is dead.

TAG-your it!

September 9, 2006, 10:40 PM

I've read snippets of his arguments. They didn't seem any more convincing to me or more compelling than any other TAG-ist.

I've informally debated against the Transcendal Argument for the existence of God. The main issues I have with TAG:
[list]
It embraces circular logic and claims that it is non-fallacious. Circular reasoning consistently leads to wrong conclusions in other realms, and it does in discussing the existence of god
I don't think TAG does a good job in making the case for the existence of a specific god. I have never gotten a sufficient answer from a TAG supporter as to why TAG means I should believe in their God.
TAG presupposes god to prove god. Along with this, it claims that the pre-existence of God is necessary for things like logic and morality to exist, but doesn't give a reason why. I can give reasonable answers to why I don't consider god necessary for logic and morality. That TAG can't tell me why god is needed for logic/human reason or morality to exist is an indication to me that there isn't a good answer.

Transcendental reasoning I assume you understand is not about proving the existence of God; but rather qualifying the preconditions necessary to make intelligible a given experience? TAG is a two fold argument when examining the preconditions to make sense of ethics, logic, and science. One, it has used deductive reasoning to claim that God is a necessary precursor. Two, TAG concludes by making a bold statement that all other systems of thought suffer from internal inconsistencies and/or external conformity. You commented about circularity in argumentation. Question… Are you suggesting that the atheist has no presuppositions? That he has come to the table neutral? I would find this very interesting on your part if you do; for in philosophy there are two ultimate axioms. The epistemological views held are “God is” or God is not”. All other experiences are filter by these two views. TAG in not based in circularity; rather in experiential prequalification. If you are interested in hearing more about a Christian view on ethic; read the posts by Pervy and myself “TAG-your it!” after 9/11 when we debate on objective morality.
Thanks for you time!
TAG-your it!

Karen M

September 9, 2006, 11:26 PM

it has used deductive reasoning to claim that God is a necessary precursor.

Which it does by insisting that one of the premises be “God exists if x exists” to come to the conclusion “therefore, God exists because x exists.” Your conclusion isn’t very convincing when you define the main point of contention into a premise.

We can do that too:

1. Logic exists.
2. God does not exist.

3. Therefore, logic can exist without God.

I’m sure it is obvious why we are unimpressed with this line of reasoning.

Prof

September 10, 2006, 01:34 AM

Transcendental reasoning I assume you understand is not about proving the existence of God;

Alethias was quite explicit he was discussing the TAG, which happens to be: the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God.

Doncha know.

So no your comment on "transcendental reasoning" is needless and misses the issue.

Two, TAG concludes by making a bold statement that all other systems of thought suffer from internal inconsistencies and/or external conformity.

That's bold alright. Have you in fact examined all other possible systems of thought? Or are you holding up TAG as in inductive argument (i.e. "all systems of thought aside from Christian Presuppositionalism I have seen are internally inconsistent, hence I generalize ALL systems outside of CP are internally inconsistent").

Just curious.

The epistemological views held are “God is” or God is not”. All other experiences are filter by these two views.

This is the typical false dichotomy enforced by Christian Presuppositionalists.
If you think those are the "ultimate axioms" philosophers now care about in philosophy, you have been huddled too long in your Christian schooling. You're only, oh...a century or so behind the times. (Many would say a lot more than that). Your hilariously restrictive (and theologically self-serving) view of epistemology won't pass around here.

Unfortunately, you can't get that by people who recognize false dichotomies, so you'll have to try something else, please.

TAG in not based in circularity;

TAG is based upon denial. Denial of the presuppositions that really underlie it's axioms, and denial of all experience and logic that contradicts it's
fundamental assumption (truth of Bible). Given that state of affairs, TAG is a miserable failure as an "account" for logic and human experience. In fact, TAG and Christian Presuppositionalism, when portrayed as an epistemological project, is essentially a hoax.

Prof.

DMW

September 10, 2006, 12:29 PM

What is the answer to the TAG?

The TAG fails to establish that those who oppose it are using the fallacy of the stolen concept and - interestingly enough - uses the fallacy of the stolen concept within its own premises.

The TAG argues - and rightfully so - that knowledge is hierarchical in nature. Hence, to argue against a concept, on which a concept in your argument logically depends, requires a stolen concept.

The problem is that the laws of logic do not depend on Adam and Eve eating a fruit; the laws of science do not depend on an Ark, a tower, or a temple being built; and morals do not depend on the death of a first century Jew.

Furthermore, these do not even depend on one another. Hence, I do not - contrary to the TAG - need to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to use logic, science, or morals. The elements of such a worldview are not even connected (at least, not by necessity) to one another let alone to the use of logic, science, or morals.

One could try to salvage the argument by claiming that a deity is necessary for the universe, the stories in the Bible, and Christianity to exist, but this would require a stolen concept.

Existence exists; it is a metaphysical primary. To ask where it came from presupposes a place for it to come from, and places presuppose existence. To ask who made existence presupposes a person, and persons presuppose consciousness, which presupposes existence. Hence, asking where existence came from and/or who made it depend on the concept of existence. Thus, arguing that existence came from somewhere/someone requires the use of a stolen concept.

One could further try to salvage the argument by differentiating between our existence and that of a deity, but it would be a false dichotomy. If existence can have a property that makes a prior exsistence unnecessary, our existence can have that property. But, if existence requires a prior existence to create it, then a god's existence requires a prior existence to create him/her/it.

In summary, the TAG argument fails to establish that the "knowledge" involved in a Christian worldview is hierarchical in nature, it fails to establish that I need to accept such a worldview in order to argue against it, and it uses the very same fallacy that it accuses its opponents of using.

DMW

Gooch's dad

September 10, 2006, 12:36 PM

JLK

September 10, 2006, 03:07 PM

From C. Van Til, who invented presuppositionalism:
“We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning possible to finite man."
Introduction to Systematic Theology page 24, See also pages 36 and following"How could the theistic proofs then be sound, for if they prove that the God of Aristotle exists, then they disprove that the God of Christianity exists."
Common Grace and the Gospel. page 182. "But the reason of sinful men will invariably act wrongly."
Apologetics, page 49 "The Scriptures nowhere appeal to the unregenerated reason as a qualified judge. ...When scripture says: 'Come, let us reason together', it usually speaks to the people of God, and if it does speak to others, it never regards them as equal with God or as really competent to judge." [With respect to everything,] "...the unregenerate reason is entirely unqualified to judge."
Introduction to Systematic Theology, page 29 On the Bible:"While we shun as poison the idea of the really contradictory we embrace with passion the idea of the apparently contradictory."
Common Grace and the Gospel, page 9.

Dulos

September 10, 2006, 04:12 PM

I'm not the best debater here, so we're probably pretty evenly matched.

That's good to hear, debating is something that I am not good at, it takes time for me to chew on stuff before it can sink in. Thanks for being patient though.

I agree that its intent is to validate Christian Theism as the only choice. I agree that all worldviews start with axiomatic premises. I'm not sure I like the word 'presupposition'

I think that when we are presented with something, we always have a bias when looking into it. In theological circles, I hear the term, "Let Scripture intrepret Scripture", however that will never happen. I don't believe anyone is in a neutral poisition w/o having some form of a bias.

O really? How exactly does it show that? I've seen this claimed.

I feel this way b/c an atheist has no foundation to base these things from. Sure one can claim that nature gave us these things, but what gave nature (an unintelligent "thing") these laws. I remember talking to my friend at work (though he is not an atheist, who would be more of a new age theist) he would always make these outragous claims. He would tell me that the Bible is 100% real, yet 100% B.S. I thought to myself, it can't be both at the same time. Or he would tell me that all roads lead to God. I would ask him, "why do you believe that?" He would tell me that is just what he believes. There is no doubt that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they have to have a reason for it. I can't claim that there are unicorns in the sky with red tube socks on and it become reality. I can't just believe something and then that makes it real. I have to have a basis for it. So for an atheist to claim that there is no God, and yet claim to have logic, reason and morals, with no "reason" or "basis" for it just tells me that its inconsistant. Also, take morals for example. If an atheist has no basis for morals, they cannot consistantly condemn others. I have brought up the example of Bin Ladin many times. Here in the west, he is wrong for what he has done. Yet in his culture he is right. So who is right? Both can't be right at the same time. Either he is right or wrong. I can look from Scripture and condemn him for killing people (I already know what's going to be said to this claim). In a godless world, why should anyone condemn him? He should be entitled to his opinion and feelings as a human being. If he is right according to his culture, than does that make what he did right? I have heard Dan Barker define wrong as causing unnecessary harm to another human being. But who defines "harm"? And why should I listen to Dan Barker? Though I agree with him and I think it is a Christian answer, I just can't see morals in a godless world practiced consistantly.

I would agree that some atheists don't have a consistent foundation for their beliefs. But atheism is not a belief system. I'm a philosophical naturalist with strong ties to humanism for moral structures. If you talk to any 2 atheists you're gonna get variations of beliefs.
But at this level, we're not talking about the character of god. We're talking about the Existence of god. I don't have to accept the christians axiomatic viewpoint to talk about the existence of god.

I agree, but most debates turn into this kind of debate. A skeptic will try to disprove the existence of God by pointing out God's "poor" character in the Bible. They can't accept Him if the Christian God exists.

I've never seen evidence for the existence of god that is not more readily explained by concluding that it's really not evidence for the existence of god.

Could you give me an example. I have tried to read some articles and I was lost b/c the wording went way over my head. I honestly need a dictionary when I read those articles.:banghead:

sorry, but I'm not a fan of carm.org. I don't really think they do a good job at all. But they probably do a good job of helping christians stay faithful.

I don't think many non Christians are. But as a Christian, I enjoy them though. :)

Why can't it just happen? Logic is the byproduct of consciousness/awareness. Consciousness and self-awareness developed in man over the course of millenia because it gives us an evolutionary advantage. Of course it can just happen.

Why is it that we have the kind of logic that we have today? Coud it be different years from now? Is logic universal?

That's not really your toughest nut to crack though. Does intelligence have to be created by intelligence? If so, where did gods intelligence come from? If gods intelligence didn't have to be created, why not, and why is mine different, requiring creation?

Nature seems to show that intelligence needs to be created by intelligence. Life has to come from intelligence. If my wife and I have to decide to have a son, we have to create him. He can't just appear. I don't think the universe can be eternal because it is not God. As a Christian I argue for the Christian God, so I believe that God is above and outside of the universe. He is outside of time, He created it. The universe is not God, nor can it create or be self existing. From my little understanding of science, the universe seems to show some kind of origin, science just hasn't "found" it yet. But I believe that there are others who argue that it was always there. But what I would like to know is how do we know that the universe has always existed? Can we prove that? If so, how can we measure eternity? I can claim that God has always existed b/c He says so in His Word. If God is my foundation, why do I need to go further than Him?

Does god have logic? If so, where does god's logic come from?

I believe that God has logic, it's a part of Him. From what I understand, God did not just create logic, it's a part of Him. It's not seperate or different from Him.

I think God does have logic, however I think it is a part of Him, I don't think He "created" it. It isn't above Him or different from Him.

TAG presupposes the existence of intelligence and consciousness in god and claims that gods intelligence and consciousness pre-exists all other intelligence, but provides no explanation to why this is needed. Why is it valid to assume the primacy of consciousness over existence? Why is it not better to assume the primacy of existence over consciousness?

I think we need intelligence and consciousness to pre-exist b/c nature seems to point that way. For all that we do, there has to be a reason for it. Were not just random complex machines who make random decisions. We have a basis, foundation for doing the things that we do. To claim that there is no basis or foundation and yet live it out just doesn't seem consistant.

It made sense in that I believe I understand your words, but it doesn't make sense in the respect that it is not an adequate explanation of existence. sorry.

:wave:

Alethias

Man, I think that was my longest post. Again, thanks for taking time to read and reply.

In Christ,

Dulos

Cheerful Charlie

September 10, 2006, 05:40 PM

Im confused... sorry because im soo new at logic.

By reading the rest of your post you seem to mean by the word 'creates' here that a god created all actions. You go on to try and prove that, let's see how you do.

This would be true.
Foreknowledge, however, isn't the same as compulsion.
If we agree with that, we can continue.

That seems to follow so far.

If god,as he intends to creat a Universe, his ompotence sees that 13 billion
years hence, this universe starting with god's intial conditions brings for a man
named John Smith who commits a rape on 16th june,1999, God must contemplate
as to if whether thsat is to happen or not.

God does decide all and creates all If he decices intial conditions bring forth Smiths
rape is acceptable, that rape, which depends soley on initial conditions of god creation
happens because of that. If God decides no, do not allow this, the changed intial
conditions bring for something else.

God decides all, creates all..

If god creates all, and is omniscient, omnigenesis holds and free wil is impossible.

If god is transceednt to time and there is no past,no future, only now, god creates all
now in all detail.

There is no free will, omnigenesis holds again.

A god that creates all and is omniscient or is omnipotent gives us omnigensis.

Given the initial conditions, god creates all, and god is omnipotent and thus outside
time, or god is omniscient, all follows. logically.

No.
There is a difference between purposely deciding to have and allowing.

Again, there is a difference between allowing something and sanctioning it. It is a substantive distinction and your omnigensis argument floats right by this point.

In my honest opinion you've not shown this to be true by a long stretch. I don't know why, but for some reason it is common to skeptics to confuse the relationship between free will and omniscience.

I have shown that. Once initial assertions of creator of all, and omnipotent, or
creator of all and omnsicent are made, we are driven logically to omnigenesis.

Again, you've not shown that we are without free will.

Evil wouldn't not have to be created by a god in order to exist.
Evil could be the absence of something else - just like darkness is something that doesn't exist, but instead, is the absence of light.

Your omni-gensis is a rehash of the problem of evil.
While the argument can present some serious food for thought for a theist it is by no means a proof for the non-existence of a god.

In my honest opinion, trying to shoe horn it into a proof really undercuts it's effectiveness against the theist.

If god has a choice, allow John Smith to exist 13 billion years from now and
committing a nasty rape, an dnot allowing that, and god alows it, god is responsible.

God not only has a chiice, he is frcced to make tha decision, personally in all its minute details.
If Smith commits rape, god allowed it personally and purpoisefully.

Since al creation is reliant on initial starting conditions set by god, by
setting conditions, he decides if Smith rapes or not.

All our acts are created thus by god.

This is not the old PoE. Omnigenesis is something new on top of that.

This destroys the Free Will defence.
No free will saves god.
This destroys compatibalism

if god thus creates all acts all men do, all evil is in fact god's specific doing.

I created this omnigenesis argument about a year ago, and much googling
later have found nothing like it.

Omnigenesis is a deep critique of the class of omni-eveything creator gods.

I makes the idea of a god that loves us, wants us to be saved, is all good,
merciful and just impossible. It makes a mockery of heaven, hell, good, evil,
sin, salvation and damnation.

Cheerful Charlie
does not show me anybody else who has stated this in this fashion.

Alethias

September 10, 2006, 06:23 PM

Transcendental reasoning I assume you understand is not about proving the existence of God; but rather qualifying the preconditions necessary to make intelligible a given experience?This appears to me to be an evasion because of what you have to say following. TAG is a two fold argument when examining the preconditions to make sense of ethics, logic, and science. One, it has used deductive reasoning to claim that God is a necessary precursor. There we go. Claiming that god is a necessary precursor, therefore god exists. This is an attempt to prove the existence of god.Two, TAG concludes by making a bold statement that all other systems of thought suffer from internal inconsistencies and/or external conformity.That is not only a bold statement, it's an unprovable statement.You commented about circularity in argumentation. Question… Are you suggesting that the atheist has no presuppositions?If by presuppositions you mean things for which I have no legitimate reason to believe, I am suggesting that some atheists come to the table with no presupposition. If you mean axiomatic premises, then no. Everyone has axiomatic premises at the base of their arguments, whether they realize it or notfor in philosophy there are two ultimate axioms. The epistemological views held are “God is” or God is not”.Well, that is an interesting claim.TAG in not based in circularity; rather in experiential prequalification.O really? TAG does not presume the existence of god in order to prove the existence of god? That is circular reasoning. It seems to me that you are doing this in your presentation even in this post, so it seems odd that you'd say that TAG doesn't use circular reasoning.
A. Santa Exists as a necessary prequalification to receiving toys.
B. I receive Toys.
C. Therefore, Santa Exists.

This type of logic is a component of TAG arguments. How is it not circular reasoning? If you are interested in hearing more about a Christian view on ethic; read the posts by Pervy and myself “TAG-your it!” after 9/11 when we debate on objective morality.I'd be happy to read it. Do you have a link? I'm very familiar with christian views on ethics. I spent 27 years of my life as a christian and was an ordained minister a few years back, but i think I'd enjoy reading your perspective on the subject.

To be precise, we aren't talking about Transcendental Reasoning, we are talking about the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, which is a specific application of transcendental reasoning.

Alethias.

Prof

September 10, 2006, 06:49 PM

Dulos, sorry for butting in (ah heck, it's a public board anyway...)....but I first wanted to welcome you to Infidels, since I haven't "seen" you around before. You seem to have a civil approach to discussing these issues, which is appreciated. Just a couple things...

I feel this way b/c an atheist has no foundation to base these things from.

That's not the case at all, as you'll find out if you stick around here. It is typical that Christians hold a lot of misconceptions about secularism and morality in general, because they tend to have only been exposed to a very insular concept of morality.

I would argue that morality both is not, and can not be based upon a God. But that will take a slightly longer response than this.

Sure one can claim that nature gave us these things, but what gave nature (an unintelligent "thing") these laws.

First don't get mislead (as so many are) by the word "laws." That's our word, an unfortunately hold-over from a history suffuse with religion and beliefs in "law-making" Gods. Rather, what some term "laws" are simply regularities observed in nature. (And there is plenty that is irregular as well).

So your question implies that these regularities (e.g. gravity, speed of light etc) demand explanation. But they don't. At least, not in the way you assume they do. You are carrying over assumptions that are formed while living within the universe to questions that (for lack of better phrase) apply outside the universe (i.e. what is it that makes universes?). To see the way you are carrying over the wrong assumptions to the wrong scenario, let's look at two scenarios:

Scenario 1. Let's say it's fall. You step outside, most of the leaves have fallen off the tree in your yard. There the leaves sit willy-nilly all over the lawn. Nothing in this scenario would compel you to think "How unusual the leaves landed like this. This DEMANDS an explanation!" Why? It's your frame of reference: your experience of the simple regularities of nature (e.g. gravity, wind etc) tells you this is nothing out of the ordinary. It's consonant with "how things are" in the world.

Scenario 2. You walk out of the house and the leaves have fallen. Only this time you see the leaves are all arranged to spell the sentence "Good Morning Dulos. How are you today?"

NOW you'd be rightly thinking: THIS demands explanation! Why? Because it is not your (or our) experience of the world that such things happen by simple, natural forces on their own. The experience of the leaves in that sentence formation runs (by great odds) AGAINST your experience of the everyday results of simple physical laws at work.

Because your knowledge of the apparent constraints of our physical universe tells you such things should not happen, without intelligence.

I hope you are beginning to see how this applies to your question about the physical regularities in our universe. When you imply
that the simple laws of nature demand explanation, you are in "scenario 1," but you are walking outside, seeing the leaves fallen randomnly, but REACTING as if they have fallen intelligently, and acting as if those leaves, having followed the simple physics, suddenly were indicative of Intelligent Design.

Can you see the problem? It's because none of us have any experience of universes other than our own. There is no basis on which to conclude "How odd it is that I find myself in a universe that exhibits some regularities! This demands explanation because it should be otherwise."

See, there are no grounds to say that a universe should be totally chaotic - because we've no experience of other universes to make that judgement. It may simply be that some regularities are characteristic of "universes"...or it may not...but we don't know. We can say that it is characteristic of THIS universe, the one we know. But you have no basis for saying "Look, this is so strange our universe has these regularities that it begs an answer. These things just don't happen as a matter of course in Universes! So, either you give me an explanation or I'm going to conclude universes REQUIRE someone to make them contain regularity."

Can you see the fallacy now in such thinking? This fallacy of falsely extrapolating from experience of discrete parts of the universe, to "outside" or to the "whole" of the universe is a consistent feature of theistic thinking.

And, note another issue your question misses: Note that in everyday life it is when simple physical regularities are thwarted, or insufficient to explain a phenomena, that we ask for an explanation based on intelligence.
Why would a bunch of leaves in the shape of a sentence compel us to think intelligence must have had a hand? Because the simple regularities of nature are insufficient to explain such a thing

Why would leaves falling in a typical pattern around a tree NOT demand a similar explanation? Because our experience tells us the simple regularities in nature suffice to explain such a thing, and hence NO INTELLIGENT AGENT need be adduced. This is how you operate, correctly, in your everyday life when making decisions on whether things need intelligent intervention or not.

But in your assertion about physical "laws" needing intelligence, you are doing precisely the opposite! With absolutely ZERO basis, you are thinking that the simple physical laws - the ones you usually understand as NOT requiring intelligence, like an apple falling to the ground - suddenly "require" intelligent origin.

Unlike complex human artifacts like, say, computers...when have you ever observed that any simple physical natural law required intelligent origin? No. Never. Not once. So it's entirely invalid to presume they require an intelligent agent as explanation.

Does this make the issue clear, I hope?

Cheers!

Alethias

September 10, 2006, 06:57 PM

That's good to hear, debating is something that I am not good at, it takes time for me to chew on stuff before it can sink in. Thanks for being patient though. and I thank you for your patience as well. I think that when we are presented with something, we always have a bias when looking into it. In theological circles, I hear the term, "Let Scripture intrepret Scripture", however that will never happen. I don't believe anyone is in a neutral poisition w/o having some form of a bias.agreed.I feel this way b/c an atheist has no foundation to base these things from.That is a common claim. I would say the opposite is true. I base my moral system and beliefs on what I am sure exists. You base yours on what you can't prove exists. It seems that I have the more solid basis.Sure one can claim that nature gave us these things, but what gave nature (an unintelligent "thing") these laws.Ok. Conversely, one can claim that god makes natural laws, but what gave them to god? There is no doubt that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they have to have a reason for it. Not really. Everyone's opinion seems reasonable to them, or they wouldn't hold it. But that doesn't mean it really is reasonableI can't claim that there are unicorns in the sky with red tube socks on and it become reality. I can't just believe something and then that makes it real. I have to have a basis for it. I find it amazing that you would say this, and yet claim that god is real.So for an atheist to claim that there is no God, and yet claim to have logic, reason and morals, with no "reason" or "basis" for it just tells me that its inconsistant. Your the one saying that it has no reason or basis. I said that logic, reason and morals have their basis in evolutionary development in that they give man a survival edge.Also, take morals for example. If an atheist has no basis for morals, they cannot consistantly condemn others. I have brought up the example of Bin Ladin many times. Here in the west, he is wrong for what he has done. Yet in his culture he is right. So who is right? Both can't be right at the same time. Either he is right or wrong. I can look from Scripture and condemn him for killing people (I already know what's going to be said to this claim). In a godless world, why should anyone condemn him? He should be entitled to his opinion and feelings as a human being. If he is right according to his culture, than does that make what he did right? I have heard Dan Barker define wrong as causing unnecessary harm to another human being. But who defines "harm"? And why should I listen to Dan Barker? Though I agree with him and I think it is a Christian answer, I just can't see morals in a godless world practiced consistantly. Morals aren't practiced consistently amongst christians either. Christians killed people in the crusades, and practiced slavery and polygamy and many other things, all the while proclaiming it moral according to christianity. All of these are things are practices that modern christian condemn. They were things that seemed reasonable to people at the time given the society they lived in. People have a tendency to adopt the morals of they society they live in, whatever they claim the source of those morals are. This is an evolutionary tendency that gives humans a survival edge, regardless of the book called the bible.Why is it that we have the kind of logic that we have today? Coud it be different years from now? Is logic universal?I answered this already but i guess you missed it. We have logic as a byproduct of our consciousness and ability to reason. It is not universal. Nature seems to show that intelligence needs to be created by intelligence. You think that because of your biased perspective. I see nothing in nature that requires intelligent design.Life has to come from intelligence. If my wife and I have to decide to have a son, we have to create him. He can't just appear.[quote]Mice reproduce in the same way that you reproduce. It is a biological imperative that comes from nature and has nothign to do with intelligence. All species that exist have this type of biological imperative, or they wouldn't exist. Has nothing to do with intelligence or god. [quote=Dulos;3743819]I don't think the universe can be eternal because it is not God.Why do you pick god to be eternal? I can't see a good reason for this that doesn't involve some type of circular logic like "god is eternal because he is god.". As a Christian I argue for the Christian God, so I believe that God is above and outside of the universe.you and I have a different definition of the word 'universe' then. The universe is everything that exists. If god is outside the universe, god doesn't exist.But what I would like to know is how do we know that the universe has always existed? Can we prove that?Of course not. But the law of the conservation of matter/energy that says that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed is sufficient evidence for me, even though I can't prove it. If so, how can we measure eternity? I can claim that God has always existed b/c He says so in His Word. If God is my foundation, why do I need to go further than Him? You don't need to go further. I'm not trying to convert you. You're the one interested in converting me. :) Or at least your Bible has that directive in it. I have no such directive and am happy for you not to convert to my beliefs. If you choose to continue being a christian, that is your right, but I'll continue to defend the truth regardless of that.To claim that there is no basis or foundation and yet live it out just doesn't seem consistant. I didn't say there is no basis or foundation for logic/reason. That is your claim, not mine, as I have already expounded multiple times.

Alethias.

TAG-your it!

September 10, 2006, 07:59 PM

We can do that too:
1. Logic exists.
2. God does not exist.
3. Therefore, logic can exist without God.
I’m sure it is obvious why we are unimpressed with this line of reasoning.

Thanks for the post Karen. Could you do me a favor? Since you say that “we can do that too”; could you show me how you can have an abstract, universal identity in a world view (atheism) where nothing is teleological?

Philosoft

September 10, 2006, 08:34 PM

"Abstract universal identity" is a funny way to say "nothing."

By the by, how did an "abstract universal identity" all of a sudden become part of the TAG?

JLK

September 10, 2006, 11:03 PM

how you can have an abstract, universal identity in a world view (atheism) where nothing is teleological?An atheist just denies there is some external teleology/purpose to nature but certainly thinks there are goal seeking processes in nature, developed thru adapation.
Sometimes these have been called "telenomic (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html)" -- a plant bending it's leaves to the sun. Other entities have evolved memories and an internal model of nature which they can manipulate and assign values, and are called agents (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaai.org%2FAITopics%2Fhtml%2Fagents.html&ei=scIERZnPMq64iwHC1MnzCQ&sig=__OL6j9eP6f9U_TxjAoMIrxyNkT1A=&sig2=L236LSB8p4pGMZ8f60wPEA), which, with neural_networks, can evolve (http://agents.umbc.edu/cgi-bin/searchaw.pl?q=evolution). Like nematodes. Others have one or many layers of mappings of one pattern to others, and can connect the mappings in different ways. This allows "abstraction." Like birds. Others can map the mappings themselves. Symbolic language.
The symbolic language employing agents, based on learning from experience, infer that some of these abstractions appear to be "universal", in the sense they find they are used ubiquitously in their understanding and predicting nature. One of these abstract apparent universals they give the name "logic".

BTW, your 9/11 discussion w/Pervy is not easily accessible since 3 years is the limit of IIDB archives, I think.
And I hope your name isn't TAG-your it! instead of TAG-you're it! because this will involve tagging everyone's it.

XOVER

September 11, 2006, 12:38 AM

Why do christians think their god is so "moral" when he had all of them committing incest with each other for hundreds and hundreds of years? And then suddenly, the guy changes his mind?

Just another example of the world, I guess. And an affirmation of moral relativism. Though coming from sanctimonious christians, it kind of reeks.

Karen M

September 11, 2006, 12:51 AM

Thanks for the post Karen. Could you do me a favor? Since you say that “we can do that too”; could you show me how you can have an abstract, universal identity in a world view (atheism) where nothing is teleological?

My point was that anyone could define the main issues of dispute within an argument into one of the premises. This still doesn’t make the conclusion automatically true.

If by “abstract, universal identity” you mean to imply “God” is somehow required for logic, then I would have to disagree.

The human brain is obsessed with organizing and classifying objects and concepts into tidy little compartments. Logic is the method the brain uses to deduce if claims belong in the “true” category or the “false” category. It is another system of classification.

I’m not seeing why this seemingly ordinary part of intelligence requires an outside supernatural influence.

Dean Anderson

September 11, 2006, 02:59 AM

BTW, your 9/11 discussion w/Pervy is not easily accessible since 3 years is the limit of IIDB archives, I think.

Actually, the reason it is not easily accessible is that it hasn't taken place yet!

It is scheduled to start today (11th Sep) with Tag-your it! making the opening post...

Cheerful Charlie

September 11, 2006, 03:17 AM

My point was that anyone could define the main issues of dispute within an argument into one of the premises. This still doesn’t make the conclusion automatically true.

If by “abstract, universal identity” you mean to imply “God” is somehow required for logic, then I would have to disagree.

The human brain is obsessed with organizing and classifying objects and concepts into tidy little compartments. Logic is the method the brain uses to deduce if claims belong in the “true” category or the “false” category. It is another system of classification.

I’m not seeing why this seemingly ordinary part of intelligence requires an outside supernatural influence.

Consider the most powerful god imaginable.
A god who is not limited by logic is more powerful than a god that is limited by logic.
A god that is not limited by logic and hates evil can eliminate evil.
For example that god who has free will and a good nature incapable of evil can give man a
god-like good nature and a god-like free will and thus man can do no moral evil and thus
moral evil cannot exist.

Any possible logical problem some theologists can come up with, specious or not is easily
defeated because god is not lmited by logic.

Thus moral evil is impossible if god is not limited by logic.
Moral evil exist.
that god, not limited by logic cannot exist.

We do not know if a god exists, but we have just proven if a god exists,
that god is limited by logic.

Thus we know logic is the most basic absolute possible.
Even god cannot escape logic.

Nor can he have purposefully created it this way since to do so allows evil to exist.

and if to dodge the issue one makes the specious claim logic is god,or withing god,
it still does not solve teh problem, how is itthat logic ic so basic god cannot escape logic's
limits.
If one claims its part of god somehow, how is it that god cannot change his nature such
as logic is changed to be non-limiting, we have a nasty metaphysical problem. How did
god come about such as anyway you look at it, logic limits god?

What meta-metaphysics would build a logical limit into god's nature?

Cheerful Charlie

TAG-your it!

September 11, 2006, 06:10 AM

On the topic of transcendental reasoning:

So no your comment on "C" is needless and misses the issue.

What you have written shows me that you don’t understand what a transcendental argument is. Don’t take my word about its definition; look it up. Transcendental reasoning is one way in which a person understands an experience. If a person desires to comprehend how a particular experience can have meaning. It is reasonable to ask what preconditions are necessary for that particular experience. I know that you said that TAG presupposes God. You even gave a premise; “Transcendental Argument FOR the existence of God”. Please consider the following:

The Transcendental Argument................for ..............God

The Use of transcendental reasoning on given topic...........equals.........God as precondition

When we look at logic, science, and ethics by means of transcendental reasoning we see God as a precondition in order to give that experience meaning.

If you are going to argue against TAG, then you should at least offer evidence to falsify its premises. Just to say transcendental reasoning is needless and misses the issue tells me that you have been asleep at the wheel of your studies.
TAG runs like this: Transcendental reasoning leads me to believe that the Christian God is a necessary precondition in logic, science, and ethics. So assured in this belief that I argue that any other philosophical system of thought that doesn’t include the Christian God is false. Now I know that you don’t adhere to this world view. My point is that the use of transcendental reasoning doesn’t presuppose God. If I wanted to go deeper, I could have said that since all languages ultimately presuppose God in order to make sense; reasoning itself (since it is built on language) presupposes God. But the topic is the mechanism of reasoning; not it’s foundation.

On the subject of axioms; “God is” or ‘God is not”:

…..This is the typical false dichotomy enforced by Christian Presuppositionalists.
If you think those are the "ultimate axioms" philosophers now care about in philosophy,

Oh! I’m sorry… maybe you can explain to room how the reality of God can be both true and false at the same time. This might tend to violate the law of non-contradiction.

The rest of what you posted equates to one unsupported assertion after another. You didn’t offer, not even one premise in support of the conclusions that you just threw out there as truth. I find you reasoning argumentative; not adding anything to the conversation.

Thanks for your post!
(TAG-your it!)

Dean Anderson

September 11, 2006, 07:04 AM

You didn’t offer, not even one premise in support of the conclusions that you just threw out there as truth.

Fair's fair. Neither have you, so far.

For example, in this last post, you simply assert:

Transcendental reasoning leads me to believe that the Christian God is a necessary precondition in logic, science, and ethics. So assured in this belief that I argue that any other philosophical system of thought that doesn’t include the Christian God is false. Now I know that you don’t adhere to this world view. My point is that the use of transcendental reasoning doesn’t presuppose God.

This is simply "throwing out there as truth" (as you put it) that "transcendental reasoning" does not presuppose God, but instead leads one to believe that the Christian God is a necessary precondition.

Where is your support for this conclusion? Where is your evidence that transcendental reasoning inescapably leads to the conclusion that the Christian God is necessary?

So far, you have merely made that assertion and not provided any reason for us to believe it to be true.

I have no wish to debate the quality of your evidence (should you actually provide some) on this thread - we have a formal debate thread for that - but I feel that I must point out that you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, and that gives the appearance of hypocrisy.

This is given an even stronger appearance of hypocrisy by the fact that you are asserting that the TAG does not presuppose the existence of the Christian God - yet your very profile here on IIDB references TAG in your username and includes the following in your "beliefs" section:

I’m believe [sic] in a presuppositional apologetic method for defending my espisomological [sic] position.

So, is the TAG apologetic presuppositional (as your profile would have us believe) or is it not presuppositional (as your post would have us believe)?

Prof

September 11, 2006, 09:33 AM

If you are going to argue against TAG, then you should at least offer evidence to falsify its premises. Just to say transcendental reasoning is needless and misses the issue tells me that you have been asleep at the wheel of your studies.

You misunderstood what I was pointing out to you. Your reply to Alethias was to point out to him that transcendental reasoning is not about proving the existence of God. Well, of course it isn't in a general sense. We know that. But Alethias was clearly talking about the specific case in which transendental reasoning IS being used to support the existence of God. The Transcendental Argument for God.

Which means your remark was needless, virtually a non-sequitur. I hope my point is clear now.

Further, it's clear from Alethias' description of why he/she feels that the TAG fails, that Alethias does understand transcendental reasoning. He just finds that TAG fails.

In fact, the TAG has been debated quite a number of times here on II and many of us can recite the Christian Presuppositionalist mantra in our sleep.

In my case, I've informally debated many Christian Presuppositionalists, and I've read relevant selections of Van Till, Bahnsen, Clark and Frame. I know what Christian Presup. is about, what the TAG tries to do, and I recognize it is a hoax, in terms of being a purported epistemological project.

Are you ready to jump into the whole "You atheists can't justify things like induction" bit now? I'm ready. :D

TAG runs like this: Transcendental reasoning leads me to believe that the Christian God is a necessary precondition in logic, science, and ethics.

I know. And when we examine the reasoning in detail, we find that the use of the word "necessary" (precondition) is hilariously missapplied.
But in order to get there, I'll let you make an argument first.

Oh! I’m sorry… maybe you can explain to room how the reality of God can be both true and false at the same time. This might tend to violate the law of non-contradiction.

I had pointed out that you had falsely portrayed the "God or not God" question as the central question among philosophers, which is false.
Why do you respond with this non-sequitur? :huh:

The rest of what you posted equates to one unsupported assertion after another. You didn’t offer, not even one premise in support of the conclusions that you just threw out there as truth. I find you reasoning argumentative; not adding anything to the conversation.

Do you not realise that you've just described your own reply to me? Go back and read it. It is one assertion after another about what TAG asserts, without a hint of argument in support.

Since you are the one wielding the TAG, I await an argument for it. Why, for instance, is God a "precondition" for the intelligibility of our experience?
(Even though I know the reasoning behind Christian Presuppositionailism, I'd prefer you make your own argument so I'm not accused of building straw-men).

Do you want to start with the "problem of induction," Uniformity of Nature and all that? Or some other particular point?

Thanks

Prof.

gregfl

September 11, 2006, 09:35 AM

Alethias was quite explicit he was discussing the TAG, which happens to be: the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God.

Doncha know.

Yet, Taggers rarely or never support their arguments. Instead, they try to reduce the argument to competing 'worldviews' and then chip away at yours. Meanwhile, they have configured their 'worldview', at least for the purposes of the debate, in a tight little circle. Any question is merely answered by "because of god's glory" "because in my worldview", "my worldview accounts for that", etc. Examining their worldview isn't allowed, if you try they just bellow "you are begging the questions against christianity" and move on.

So again, their premise is ignored and they place their stun gun on "attack".

That's bold alright. Have you in fact examined all other possible systems of thought? Or are you holding up TAG as in inductive argument (i.e. "all systems of thought aside from Christian Presuppositionalism I have seen are internally inconsistent, hence I generalize ALL systems outside of CP are internally inconsistent").

Just curious.

Sort of negates him using the 'problem of induction' in his argumentation, when clearly the TAG is an inductive arguement, does it not?

Hilarious..... thanks for pointing that out prof.

TAG is based upon denial. Denial of the presuppositions that really underlie it's axioms, and denial of all experience and logic that contradicts it's
fundamental assumption (truth of Bible). Given that state of affairs, TAG is a miserable failure as an "account" for logic and human experience. In fact, TAG and Christian Presuppositionalism, when portrayed as an epistemological project, is essentially a hoax.

Prof.

I don't know if it is a 'hoax' more than just a carefully configured apologetic. The TAG isn't an attempt to support its own premise but rather apresuppositionalistic attack on vocal critics of christianity. To that end, it can be very effective against people who don't understand it and for its intended audience, other christians and the ignorant.

Beyond that the TAG is devoid of any persuasive powers whatsoever.

JLK

September 11, 2006, 10:29 AM

Don’t take my word about its definition; look it up.
The Use of transcendental reasoning on given topic...........equals.........God as precondition
[..]
My point is that the use of transcendental reasoning doesn’t presuppose God.You just said it did, by definition. Unless "...........equals........." is some sort of crazy code.
If the first is a definition of "transcendental reasoning", unbelievers by definition don't think there is any such thing as "transcendental reasoning." Just the ordinary kind.

Actually, the reason the debate is not easily accessible is that it hasn't taken place yet! It is scheduled to start today (11th Sep) with Tag-your it! making the opening postAha! Somehow, I think your "it" is going to be tagged with the above sort of nonsense. No need to send best wishes. Prepare for another workman-like job in the mines.

Hedshaker

September 11, 2006, 01:58 PM

I decare my self an A-presuppositionalist, and an A-Tagist. It's bollocks. They had nothing before and they still have nothing.

The presuppers/Tagists seem to think everybody came down the Thames on a great big piss pot......... wake up call. We didn't.

You still have no God beyond your blind faith.

TAG-your it!

September 12, 2006, 05:52 AM

Are TAG arguments taken seriously at all in modern philosophy circles? It all seems to me to be nothing more than a tactic invented for bullying those who might not be well informed, into thinking that Christianity has some basis in rationality.

Maybe you can help me out. Could you show me how TANG is actually an argument from Transcendental reasoning; and not just a rebuttal to TAG?

Jack the Bodiless

September 12, 2006, 06:11 AM

False dichotomy. TAG itself is not an "argument from transcendental reasoning".

Here's what I said on the TAG In Ruins (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89006) thread:
Here's another problem that I've seen frequently from TAG-proponents:

Misunderstanding the Nature of a Transcendental Argument

The principle of a Transcendental Argument (TA) is a legitimate one. In a TA, it is argued that some aspect of thought must exist as a precursor to thought itself: it must pre-exist within the human brain before thinking can begin.

To use a computer analogy: the brain requires an "operating system", and this operating system must be up and running before the brain can begin processing data from its information-gathering peripherals.

The TA argues that this must be so due to the "impossibility of the contrary". This "impossibility" stems from what Ayn Rand called "the Stolen Concept Fallacy". This is a fallacy in which a statement denies its own means of support. The statement "I do not exist" is an example: I MUST exist in order to make the statement. Other examples include "this statement is false", or "it is absolutely true that there are no absolutely true statements".

This is also an example of the "anthropic principle": it must be so, because if it were not, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.

It is important to note that a TA argues for the EXISTENCE of such a phenomenon (and its nature as a precursor to thought). It does NOT attempt to determine what the SOURCE of the phenomenon is. Similary, the "contrary" which is being declared "impossible" is the NON-EXISTENCE of the phenomenon as a precursor to thought.

Any non-Christian worldview which does NOT deny the existence of such phenomena as precursors of thought is NOT a part of "the contrary" that a TA declares to be "impossible"!

Thus, any worldview which declares that the necessary precursors to thought are a product of evolution, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or anything else at all, cannot be refuted by a Transcendental Argument.