Nice site about TAG?

[Dante Alighieri]

http://www.christianlogic.com/brianbosse/archives/philosophy/

It looks like a nice formalization and explication of various concerns about the transcendental argument.

What do you think?

[RAFH]

TAG is ridiculous. Its circular arguments inside of circular arguments inside spiral arguments inside elliptical arguments.

Let's assume our god exists and is the basis of everything and now we can see nothing else works like god does. You out there are a bunch of losers because even if you don't believe in our god you still believe in our god. It sez so right heah.

[SwoleMan]

I must concede I fucking hate TAG. It's totally unconvincing, yet many of its proponents are amongst the most arrogant people I've ever met online.

[Dante Alighieri]

Begging the question does seem to arise, but I can't say too much without further study. TAG, minus the rhetorical flourish, does appear to be as you put it RAFH. It considers the ability of a worldview to account for metaphysics, epistemology, morality, etc. It argues that only the CW (Christian worldview) can provide a coherent account and that all other accounts are incoherent or have some sort of deficiency. The second conjunct is very hard to prove and indeed, I think it is impossible that it is so. For the purported answers that Christianity provides to metaphysics, epistemology, and so on can be combined in a worldview that is non-Christian and yet satisfy the requirement. There is nothing, for example, about the necessity of various theological obscurities it seems. Indeed, the first conjunct itself is questioned, and I think various presuppositionalists did not adequately enter the debate regarding such issues: evidential problem of evil, theological fatalism, and so on. There does not seem to be any sort of deductive argument to show the necessity of CW, merely, at best, its sufficiency.

Brian Bosse by the way does not strike one as arrogant or anything like that.

[KLK]

I must concede I fucking hate TAG. It's totally unconvincing, yet many of its proponents are amongst the most arrogant people I've ever met online.

Tell me about it! Specious pseudo-intellectual jejune crap. Utter nonsense, but it allows half-a-brain theists to convince themselves they have a workable 'answer'. I guess--for them--it beats all the usual mental contortions necessary to maintain the christianist fictions and what (vanishingly small) gaps might still be left.

[luvluv]

Nice link, Dante.

[RAFH]

Begging the question does seem to arise, but I can't say too much without further study. TAG, minus the rhetorical flourish, does appear to be as you put it RAFH. It considers the ability of a worldview to account for metaphysics, epistemology, morality, etc. It argues that only the CW (Christian worldview) can provide a coherent account and that all other accounts are incoherent or have some sort of deficiency. The second conjunct is very hard to prove and indeed, I think it is impossible that it is so. For the purported answers that Christianity provides to metaphysics, epistemology, and so on can be combined in a worldview that is non-Christian and yet satisfy the requirement. There is nothing, for example, about the necessity of various theological obscurities it seems. Indeed, the first conjunct itself is questioned, and I think various presuppositionalists did not adequately enter the debate regarding such issues: evidential problem of evil, theological fatalism, and so on. There does not seem to be any sort of deductive argument to show the necessity of CW, merely, at best, its sufficiency.

Brian Bosse by the way does not strike one as arrogant or anything like that.

Even granting immunity for the question begging and circularity (wide circles verses vicious circles?) and presumption, I've yet to get any evidence xianity actually provides the basis for anything, the TAGers just assert it does without explanation or support.

It should be subject to the death penalty, crucifixion would be appropriate, as well as huge fines.

[RandomCoolzip]

You know, the funny thing about TAG as a Christian apologetic is that even if they managed to prove the existence of a supreme being, that's still a long way from proving Christianity. There is an infinity of possible Gods, only one of which fits the Christian creedal system. Almost all of the possible Gods have never been believed in or imagined by a single human being.

Theists from Thomas Aquinas forward have conveniently assumed that once they have a solid-seeming argument for God, the battle is over. It ain't.

[Steven Carr]

How does God create logic?

God created the axioms of Euclidean geometry.

God created the axioms of non-Euclidean geometry.

Does God like contradicting himself?

Even if you believe that geometry cannot work without God, how do you use that fact to do geometry without making your own preference about what rules of logic to use?

Do you have to wait for God to reveal that space is flat before you can start?

What are these rules of logic that God has created? Pre-suppers never say....

[KLK]

Of course they never say. They can't. DA thinks that Bosse does not strike one as 'arrogant'; I'd agree, but the TAG 'argument' certainly seems so and the apologists who buy it do as well. I'm not quite sure why he's so fascinated. TAG can be refuted rather easily. Bosse correctly questions Van Til's position and correctly questions Bahnsen's ridiculous rebuttals. I'm, again, not quite sure that this requires more than a few sentences but if he wants to go on and on--well, it's his blog.

As Bosse notes, Bahnsen never rises to the occasion (he can't, of course) to adequately support his assertions. For whatever reason, Bahnsen finds this sufficient: "If the unbeliever realizes this absurdity, he may try and try again, but in each case the apologist redoubles his effort and again reduces autonomy to absurdity." Positively laughable.

[SwoleMan]

How does God create logic?

No no no, you see, logic is a part of Gods' nature. Why this is more intelligible than the assertion that logic exists independent of him (if indeed logic can be said to exist at all)? It is, and you should understand this.

[Antiplastic]

TAG is not an argument. It is a debaters' trick. It is a string of noises in the shape of an argument whose adaptive success is attributable solely to its ability to make internet debaters who use it believe that they don't have to present any actual evidence for their position, in conjunction with its ability to make atheists so bemused that anyone could possibly have uttered it that they don't know how to make a reply.