AbsolutPauer Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 The argument that Canuckfish presents in this thread is a version of the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (often referred to as TAG, for short). The folks over at the Internet Infidels forums entertain of a lot of these so-called "presuppositionalists". The argument has its roots in Kant's The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God. The believer attempts to prove the existence of the Christian God by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. It is "impossible", the believer will say, to account for the existence of "absolute moral laws" in the absence of an absolute standard and judge of morality. Hence, the unbeliever has no basis upon which to claim than any particular action is "absolutely" right or wrong. It is an appeal to the unbeliever's need to prescribe moral laws to his fellow man in order to protect his own interests (loved ones, property, etc.). Of course, this in no way makes the nonexistence of God impossible; it merely makes it undesirable. Appeal to consequences fallacy, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Shadow Posted October 6, 2006 Author Share Posted October 6, 2006 but I have Read an article over there promoting TANG (Transcendental Argument for the NON Existence of God) and it counters rather well IMO http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mic...frame/tang.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutPauer Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 I actually replied with a version of TANG at the bottom of page 3 to address his contention that the rules of logic are dependent upon God, but he resorted to the "Inherent-Property" objection. I have made a counter-objection of my own that he has not yet responded to: You claim that reason is dependent upon the existence of God, so it must be either a creation of God It isn't, so we can dump that one. If, on the other hand, reason is posited as inherent to God's nature such that the laws of logic are immutable, we still do not escape the problem that the laws of logic are contingent upon God's nature and could be different if His nature were different. It ain't and it can't be. God is who He is. Hello again, Canuckfish. Thank you for your brief reply. I appreciate conciseness. By denying that the laws of logic are creations of God, you assume the burden of proof of showing that these laws are dependent upon God. You claim that they are dependent because they are part of God's nature; God must exist or the laws would not exist. What you lose, however, is the ability to claim a basis for the laws of logic that is independent of the laws themselves. They become, in your view, necessary properties of a necessary and self-existant God. But why does it make any more sense to posit a necessary and self-existant God than it does to posit necessary and self-existant laws of logic? If the laws of logic are not dependent on God for their creation, and God is independent and self-existant, then it seems to me that the laws of logic could just as easily be independent and self-existant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkside Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 You CLAIM to only believe the bible, but your belief that the laws can be divided into 3 does not COME from the bible....it came from Thomas Aquinas. Therefor your position is just as relative as mine is. Hmmmm. You have to misrepresent what I said, in order to make it conform to your notion that it is wrong. Show me where I said I ONLY believe the Bible. Clearly I said that the Bible is my ultimate authority, and not that it is only what I believe. I believe that my name is Sye and it is nowhere written in the Bible. I can believe this and STILL have the Bible as my ultimate authority. Clearly the Bible is not your ultimate authority, but rather your interpretation of the Bible is your ultimate authority. Or in this case, Thomas Aquinas' interpretation. Thomas Aquinas' interpretation makes sense to you, so, using your reason, you accept this interpretation as authoritative and base your actions upon it. Your own reason is therefore your ultimate authority. If the Bible were your ultimate authority, you wouldn't need to apply any external rules to it in order to make it a workable manual for life. As it is, you have to apply external rules such as the ceremonial/moral/cultural law rule. Christians can't agree on how to interpret their own Bible with respect to many doctrines, because they can't agree on which external rules to apply to the Bible. Each group claims to have the Bible as their ultimate authority and each group comes to different conclusions because of their application of different external rules. Nobody "just takes the Bible at face value," despite many assertions to the contrary, because it is impossible to do so. The Bible is so full of vague and contradictory statements that in order to make a workable theology out of it, external rules, the invention of human reasoning, must be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Shadow Posted October 6, 2006 Author Share Posted October 6, 2006 I actually replied with a version of TANG at the bottom of page 3 to address his contention that the rules of logic are dependent upon God, but he resorted to the "Inherent-Property" objection. I have made a counter-objection of my own that he has not yet responded to: oops sprry missed that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest michaelrosenweig Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Amethyest, One thing about you is that you are always helpful. Much appreciated. By the way, the thread I started was no gag. It was a straight up question from the heart. For real, I would like to know why some people choose not to believe. The responses were very good. Though we may have a difference of opinion is some area, I respect you, and am gaining understanding. Thanks again, Michael What caused the photons, protons, electrons, energy particles, cosmic dust, and gravity fields to form? I highly recommend Physics for Dummies if you really don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckfish Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 You claim that reason is dependent upon the existence of God, so it must be either a creation of God It isn't, so we can dump that one. If, on the other hand, reason is posited as inherent to God's nature such that the laws of logic are immutable, we still do not escape the problem that the laws of logic are contingent upon God's nature and could be different if His nature were different. It ain't and it can't be. God is who He is. Hello again, Canuckfish. Thank you for your brief reply. I appreciate conciseness. By denying that the laws of logic are creations of God, you assume the burden of proof of showing that these laws are dependent upon God. You claim that they are dependent because they are part of God's nature; God must exist or the laws would not exist. What you lose, however, is the ability to claim a basis for the laws of logic that is independent of the laws themselves. They become, in your view, necessary properties of a necessary and self-existant God. But why does it make any more sense to posit a necessary and self-existant God than it does to posit necessary and self-existant laws of logic? If the laws of logic are not dependent on God for their creation, and God is independent and self-existant, then it seems to me that the laws of logic could just as easily be independent and self-existant. Very good post. Presupposing God allows us to account for the laws of logic et al. Presupposing the laws of logic, does not account for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 The second TAG enters the scene (which was obvious from fishies website) one can presuppose that same persons mind has shut itself off for the most part. Nothing against AbsolutPauer but even you seem to concede that you seem to be simply mounting a by the book debate strategy with him...so what's the purpose? At least our last two wacko xians (Scott and Amy) did something. This is more credit than I can give to this guy. Even the last presups that stopped through made an effort of some sort. So far I've seen a lot of hand waiving but absolutely nothing being said. It is because you say it is because you want it that way, simply isn't an argument. Put up or shut up Canuckfish. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Very good post. Presupposing God allows us to account for the laws of logic et al. Presupposing the laws of logic, does not account for them. Presupposing god does not account for him either....you just placed the process of accounting back one step for no explainable reasonn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckfish Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Very good post. Presupposing God allows us to account for the laws of logic et al. Presupposing the laws of logic, does not account for them. Presupposing god does not account for him either....you just placed the process of accounting back one step for no explainable reasonn. Never said it did. Presupposing God however, does account for the preconditions of intelligibility, how do you account for them (i.e. universal, abstract, invariant laws)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutPauer Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Very good post. Presupposing God allows us to account for the laws of logic et al. Presupposing the laws of logic, does not account for them. My question to you then is what accounts for God? If you respond and say that God needs no accounting for His existance, that He is in fact self-existant, then I would ask you why the laws of logic need any accounting for their existence. If it possible for one entity (God) to exist without cause or creation, then it seems equally as possible that any other entity (like a law of logic) could exist without cause or creation. This is what I meant when I said that you assume the burden of proof of showing that the laws are necessarily dependent upon God when you claim that they are not creations of God. Nothing against AbsolutPauer but even you seem to concede that you seem to be simply mounting a by the book debate strategy with him...so what's the purpose? If by "by the book" you mean that we are simply exchanging canned responses, then you are partially correct. I had no way of knowing how familiar Canuckfish would be with TANG, so I figured I might as well toss it into the ring. He replied with an objection that I had anticipated as a possibility, but I wouldn't have been able to counter this objection without first offering TANG to draw it out. I have used a by the book debate strategy to hopefully bring the discussion to a point where canned responses are exhausted and we can deal with the real issue. I also thought the strategy might be edifying to those board members who may not have dealt with a presuppositionalist before. Presupposing god does not account for him either....you just placed the process of accounting back one step for no explainable reasonn. Hear hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 If by "by the book" you mean that we are simply exchanging canned responses, then you are partially correct. I had no way of knowing how familiar Canuckfish would be with TANG, so I figured I might as well toss it into the ring. He replied with an objection that I had anticipated as a possibility, but I wouldn't have been able to counter this objection without first offering TANG to draw it out. I have used a by the book debate strategy to hopefully bring the discussion to a point where canned responses are exhausted and we can deal with the real issue. I also thought the strategy might be edifying to those board members who may not have dealt with a presuppositionalist before. Fair enough. I wish you lots of luck. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Very good post. Presupposing God allows us to account for the laws of logic et al. Presupposing the laws of logic, does not account for them. Presupposing god does not account for him either....you just placed the process of accounting back one step for no explainable reasonn. Never said it did. Presupposing God however, does account for the preconditions of intelligibility, how do you account for them (i.e. universal, abstract, invariant laws)? Damn it, I have only posted an answer to this question twice...... are you trying to be obtuse, or can you just not read very well? In any case, if your world view can't account for god, then why should my world view account for invariant laws? You accept that god is there with no explanation or proof, so why should there be any burden of proof on ME to support the existance of said laws. If god can be self existant, then so could the laws. Is any of this getting through? Unless, you can account for god, claiming your posistion is more "logical" than mine, or that non-thiests, have no basis to use logic, is nonsense. All you have established is that SOMETHING is self existant....it could be GOD or could be the laws of physics....either way would account for the universe we live in. and even if there is a god, it doesn't mean you worship the correct concept of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckfish Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 My question to you then is what accounts for God? This is not a cosmological argument. I am saying that one can only make sense of anything, even causality, if God exists. We can make sense of things, therefore God exists. How do you account for the preconditions of intelligibility to even posit the existence of God? To posit the laws of logic as self-existing, this would have to comport with your view of the universe. What is your view of the universe? Simply 'matter in motion,' 'sound and fury signifying nothing,' or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 My question to you then is what accounts for God? This is not a cosmological argument. I am saying that one can only make sense of anything, even causality, if God exists. We can make sense of things, therefore God exists.We can make more sense of things if we remove the god hypothesis. Therefore, gods do not exist. Forcing a god into the question gives us no answers, but many more questions.How do you account for the preconditions of intelligibility to even posit the existence of God?What "preconditions of intelligibility"?To posit the laws of logic as self-existing, this would have to comport with your view of the universe.What is your view of the universe? Simply 'matter in motion,' 'sound and fury signifying nothing,' or what? Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 My question to you then is what accounts for God? This is not a cosmological argument. I am saying that one can only make sense of anything, even causality, if God exists. We can make sense of things, therefore God exists. How do you account for the preconditions of intelligibility to even posit the existence of God? To posit the laws of logic as self-existing, this would have to comport with your view of the universe. What is your view of the universe? Simply 'matter in motion,' 'sound and fury signifying nothing,' or what? Lets try this ONE MORE TIME I'll use the most simple words I am able too, since you seem incapable of understanding the basics of logic 1. THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE LAWS THAT HUMANS CREATED BASED ON OUR OBSERVATIONS OF PHYSICS, AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 2. IF GOD CAN EXIST WITHOUT A CREATOR, THEN WHY CAN'T THE LAWS OF PHYSICS EXIST WITHOUT A CREATOR? If you cannot offer any rational way to explain away point 2 then your argument becomes nothing but a-priori assumptions and sophistry. You don't have the logical high ground here... you keep restating the same argument OVER AND OVER again while ignoring any of the problems we bring up with your position. Your being dishonest, rude, and illogical when you do this. Let me ask you a question, Why are you so afraid of having an honest conversation with us? Why do you need to resort to subterfuge and obsfucation to defend theism? Do you really think you are doing christianity or theism in general any favors by using such dishonest tactics with us? Ok, that was 3 questions, but you get the point.....hopfully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Shadow Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 don't expect a reply Kuroikaze he has compleately ignored my challenge to him regarding his moving of the goal post and since you raise a vwery hard to answer question he will just continue to ignore you because he doen't want to seem like a failure in his own mind. It is a typical Move Ask Question get answer you don't like then keep asking until you get an answer you like from your opponent. nothing new here just dodge after dodge but he is nailed. What is the definition of insanity?? Doing the same thing over and over agian and expecting different results right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Still waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutPauer Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 My question to you then is what accounts for God? This is not a cosmological argument. I am saying that one can only make sense of anything, even causality, if God exists. We can make sense of things, therefore God exists. How do you account for the preconditions of intelligibility to even posit the existence of God? To posit the laws of logic as self-existing, this would have to comport with your view of the universe. What is your view of the universe? Simply 'matter in motion,' 'sound and fury signifying nothing,' or what? No it is not a cosmological argument, but you are clearly ignoring my point. Does God require any accounting for his existence or no? If you do not account for God, then neither do I feel obligated to account for the laws of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 ....No it is not a cosmological argument, but you are clearly ignoring my point. Does God require any accounting for his existence or no? If you do not account for God, then neither do I feel obligated to account for the laws of logic.What do you mean by "account for"? Does a god have to explain itself? No, but those that claim a god exists have to back up their claim. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, not on those not buying into it. The "laws of logic" have been accounted for, and explained by someone else here. They are a human invention.... just like gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutPauer Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 What do you mean by "account for"? Does a god have to explain itself? No, but those that claim a god exists have to back up their claim. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, not on those not buying into it. The "laws of logic" have been accounted for, and explained by someone else here. They are a human invention.... just like gods. The meaning of the word "account" in the context of this discussion has been obscured by repetition. I have been using it so much that I assumed my meaning was clear, but apparently that is not the case. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. Canuckfish has made the claim that presupposing God "accounts for" the "preconditions of intelligibility" that allow us to make arguments and provide coherence to our experience. Allegedly, among these "preconditions of intelligibility" are the laws of logic. Thus, believing in God gives us reason to believe that the laws of logic are universal and absolute. If, on the other hand, one does not believe in God, one has no reason to believe that the laws of logic are universal and absolute, which allegedly undermines any argument that an unbeliever might make based on said laws. So by "what accounts for...", in the context of this discussion, I mean "on what basis are we to believe in..." Restating my last post with this definition in mind, I would ask the following: "Does belief in God require any basis? If you do not provide a basis for belief in God, then neither do I feel obligated to provide a basis for belief in the laws of logic." I am in agreement with you that Canuckfish bears the burden of proof for demonstrating his positive claim that God exists, and in his own back-asswards way, I think Canuckfish believes he is providing proof. However, his argument not only presupposes the existence of God (without providing any foundational basis for this belief), it also presupposes that the laws of logic require a foundational basis for belief. This is special pleading. One can't very well presuppose that God exists without any foundational basis and then turn around and say that the laws of logic cannot be presupposed without any foundational basis. It is true that the laws of logic have been accounted for in this thread without presupposing God, and that is certainly a valid approach. I'm just attacking the argument from another angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 .....It is true that the laws of logic have been accounted for in this thread without presupposing God, and that is certainly a valid approach. I'm just attacking the argument from another angle.That all makes sense now. I did come into the discussion in the middle of things. So far, in my 50+ years, every argument for the existence of a god starts with the a priori assumption that a god exists. The one given here is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 It's very simple - you are making the extraordinary claims (we were made from dirt and ribs by a bronze-age sky god, life after death, etc). Therefore you must provide extraordinary proof. What you've offered so far is fairly standard semantics. I'd say that the proof of God's existence, being that without Him you couldn't prove anything, as fairly extraordinary. Now how is it that you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, and thus your ability to prove anything, outside of God? Dude, you couldn't make less possible sense. Carefully re-read your post and ask yourself what you were really trying to say. Then tell me, cause I don't have a clue. Try again. [speaking slowly] Extraordinary...claims...require...extraordinary...proof. It's really simple. Prove biblegod (or any god) exists. And you'd better have something else besides circular logic, presuppositions and empty rhetoric. Is this guy for real? Or an elaborate spoofer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Shadow Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 Is this guy for real? Or an elaborate spoofer? Nope he is for real I have found him on at least 2 other boards spewing the same nonsensical garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neo-Agnostic - Vulgaris Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 My question to you then is what accounts for God? This is not a cosmological argument. I am saying that one can only make sense of anything, even causality, if God exists. We can make sense of things, therefore God exists. ... Your argument's going in such circles that if I hooked it up to a dynamo, I'd be able to power Las Vegas with just the power generated by it. You, sir, are an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts