TAG it :-)
The
“transcendental argument for the existence of God” (or TAG to its friends) is an argument that comes up every so often from the theist.
I’ve always planned to one day write a post on the topic – I am trying to have my thoughts to all the usual arguments for the existence of God up on my blog so I do not have to keep repeating myself (it will never happen I know)
TAG is a strange one, and for someone without training in the fine art of philosophy it will be a difficult post for me to write about.
So... until that dark day when I actually get to write about TAG – I thought I would “cut and paste” a response I gave to a theist who threw a version of the TAG argument at me on the “Premier Christian” forum just the other day. (
Follow the link and you might see a response – and be able to see the original comment from our theist friend)
This will be my usual “line by line” response, so it is a long one.
I will add a summary here for those who wish to skip to the conclusion:-
TAG is bollocks...To expand on my summary a little...
Either the laws of logic are dependent on God (which is the claim from the theist when they use TAG) which means the laws of logic can be changed by God, which in turns means they are not in fact laws. There will be no “uniform laws of logic” in this case.
However the claim from TAG is that there are “uniform laws of logic” which I am suppose to require God to explain.
Seems we have a bit of a contradiction going on :-)
Read on if you dare!!!!
Feel free to correct my woolly thinking – as I say, I’m no philosopher and so am just making it up as I go along.
+++++++++++++++++++
Hi Todd,
OK, I’ve got more time now; sorry that you feel I provided a ‘non-answer’ earlier – though how you have framed your question/demand, I am surprised you even allow me to use the English Language to rebut your claim.
It is almost laughable... almost.
Now, I’m no philosopher but I can smell a bad argument even if I cannot name the fallacy being used – and what you have done smells awful.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable on philosophy can point out precisely where you are going wrong (and which dead philosopher first stated the objection) – I will just sketch around your comment the best I can and have some fun in the process.
The proof of God’s existence is that without Him, you could prove nothing
Change word, and re-state claim.
“The proof of the invisible blue unicorn is that without Him, you prove nothing”
Well, can you? I know I can’t, and deep down inside you truly know it to – you just need to open your heart to the possibility, and I feel at the moment you are closed minded on the subject, to the wonders that are offered by the invisible blue unicorn :-)
OK, your first claim is nonsense as I think I have demonstrated by analogy. It is just an empty assertion and seems to be usual circular logic. You assume God, therefore there is a God.
I will now change your use of “God” to the phrase “invisible blue unicorn” since they both make as much sense to me and it will make my response a little more colourful (and invisible)
”Try objectively proving anything without presupposing our invisible blue unicorn, THE Author of creation, space, time, energy, life, reason, rationale, logic, goodness,
Another empty assertion...
You mentioned “goodness”, so where has all the “non-goodness” come from?
Did this just ‘create’ itself? :-)
Or perhaps you do not feel there is any ‘non-goodness’ in the universe, if so – to what is the label ‘goodness’ describing if everything is ‘good’? It will be a redundant label.
And how do you distinguish ‘good’ without knowledge of ‘non-good’?
Lastly, if your God created ‘non-good’, how can this God be said to be ‘all-good’... or isn’t that the Christian claim?
I will expand further on your claim of logic later... (just trying to keep you interested in reading on)
"science, math and the uniformity of nature.”
Interesting thing here... science assumes that the laws of nature do not change, the ‘uniformity of nature’ as you put it.
However the Christian believes in miracles – these would be examples of the laws of nature being broken for a moment in space-time, and evidence for the non-uniformity of nature. Would it not?
If your assertion is true, then miracles do not happen (and the bible claims of miracles are false)
So which is it my friend?
Oh, and if miracles do not happen, then everything is natural isn’t it – no God or the supernatural?
”You can’t even argue for disbelief in the invisible blue unicorn without already taken Him for granted. Ironic, isn’t it – the invisible blue unicorn lends you the mind and reason to argue against His existence.”
Nothing here to get my teeth into...
Though it is funny that you believe that your god provided us the “mind and reason” to disbelieve in Him.
Maybe that is the ultimate test from god? To get into heaven, we have to reason that God and heaven do not existence (or at least highly unlikely – since of course, we cannot prove anything 100% according to the invisible blue unicorn)
Maybe the test from God is that we must not believe the impossible on blind faith.
Now, how do you wish to go about proving me wrong on that? How do you like THAT version Pascal’s Wager?
When you respond, please account for all of the above.
Until you prove to me it isn’t all down to the invisible blue unicorn, I think I can just ignore your claims and assertions here... however, I enjoy the sport of debate and discussion, so if you do not mind, I will continue...
However, the rules are that you can’t argue from home plate without first getting up to bat, swinging at the ball, connecting, and passing through the bases of:
How American... it just isn’t cricket old boy :-)
‘Who’ (Who is YOUR ultimate source of authority specific to facts and reason?)
The universe?
Or do you think I require a person for my authority? If so, where does that person get their ‘ultimate authority’ from? Their big brother? Laughable...
So have you shown there is an “ultimate source of authority” or a requirement for it
‘How’ (How do we know or understand YOUR source and reasoning to be valid?)
I test, re-test, and re-test again and compare these tests results to reality...
Of course, I realise this could all be a computer simulation and I might be a ‘brain in a jar’ in some mad scientist’s lab – however, I have been provided no reason to believe that, so I just go on as if I am not a ‘brain in a jar’ in some mad scientist’s lab. (As you do – we are agreed on this point)
This seems reasonable; this seems to require the fewest unknown assumptions.
I could be right, I could be wrong... I do not claim any absolute knowledge – that is for the theists to claim (but can you back it up)
‘What’ (What is YOUR standard or test by which to prove or disprove anything?)
That it works in this world? I know, crazy talk – next I will be saying that with such methods we could put a man on the moon.
But what are my ‘standards’ – my requirements?
That predictions made can be falsified.
That these predictions are shown to be (tentatively) true – repeatedly.
‘Why’ (Why do YOU trust your foundation of facts and why should we believe them?),
I trust them only in so far as they have yet been shown to be false (which you are free to try and do).
Why should you believe them? You don’t have to... you can, if you chose, believe you are that ‘brain in the jar’ and you are part of a computer simulation – and nothing else is real.
You can, if you chose, believe that the invisible blue unicorn is whispering in your ear right now... I chose not to believe that.
How about you?
‘Where’ (Where do YOU receive your philosophy of facts)
Erm... I get my philosophy from philosophy?
I also get my science from science in case you are wondering. :-)
Your use of the word ‘receive’ is interesting... it is almost as if you are saying that we are not able to think for ourselves. That I am unable to think that “A” cannot be “not-A” at the same time?
No wait, you want to claim that this fact of “A” not being “not-A” is because of the invisible blue unicorn – silly me.
Without the invisible blue unicorn it would be, of course, possible to have “A” and “not-A” being the same thing at the same time.
‘When’ (When did you commit to your ultimate source and philosophy?).
What ultimate source? What ultimate philosophy?
Look at the back of the room I am sure there is a strawman there (I am just typing this scenario into my supercomputer now so your brain that is in the jar on my shelf thinks this strawman exists) – now go and take a few punches at this strawman if makes you happy. Off you go...
By the way, when answering, bring your own bat, ball and bases. You can’t borrow mine
Are these the invisible blue bat and balls that the invisible blue unicorn provided so I can have purpose in my life?
Also, I always tell my sons that they should share – it is the nice thing to do, I guess you have not been able to work this out for yourself yet :-)
The Uniform Laws of Logic
Now we are at the meat and gravy.
I’ve asked you a question on this logic and reasoning already – not had chance to see if you have replied.
To repeat it here in a little more detail...
Could your God make “A” be “not-A” or a square-circle or Pi to be anything other that the irrational number that it is?
If your God cannot change the laws of logic, how can you claim that your God created the laws of logic (it would seem that He confined by them if He cannot change them.).
If the laws of logic cannot be anything other than what they are – why do we need to assert that a God is required for them? God would not be required if they are not dependent on God – Asserting God would provide no additional benefit.
(Sounds a bit like the Euthyphro dilemma on the topic of morals... the old ones are always the best)
In summary(?)
Either the laws of logic are dependent on God (which was your claim) which means the laws of logic can be changed, which in turns means they are not in fact laws. There can be no “uniform laws of logic”
Or, there are “uniform laws of logic” (which was also your claim) which means they are not dependent on God.
Seems we have a bit of a contradiction going on – care to explain?
(these laws don’t exist in a naturalistic material world of random matter in motion
“Random matter in motion”... how belittling your worldview is.
I hope you never lose your belief in God my friend – for your sake.
you can’t empirically taste, touch, see, hear or smell logic and reason
Same for numbers I suppose... so what is your point? I cannot figure it out :-)
so please don’t use them within your response.
Well, as you can see – I’ve only used the written form of the English Language (poorly) to rebut your assertions.
(With a little help from science that helped build our PC’s and internet connections...)
Next you will be telling me that English is “God’s own language”... why not, you have claimed everything else without reason or justification.
From now on, I am going to think of Jesus talking in a scouse accent.
Sorry, but it’s your worldview – I’m just holding you accountable to it).
Sorry, what is my worldview again?
I do not believe in your God... how could I – you have not defined Him. What little you have said either makes no sense or is just a blind assertion.
How do I know that your God isn’t in fact the invisible blue unicorn or just the universe? How to I distinguish between a non-existent God and your particular flavour of God?
Bottom-line, we must account for “on what basis?” do we hold to our intellectual reasons about facts?
And the assertion of the invisible blue unicorn provides that for you does it?
Sorry, God – my mistake, so hard to tell blind assertions apart sometimes when you do not detailed your definition of God.
That should be enough for you for one night, I look forward to your reply...
And please make it better than “You used the English Language, God invented that, without God you cannot have the English Language, or England, or anything - so you have to invent your own language and country and I cannot hear you anyway, God invented sound as well – nar nar na nar nar – not listening, not listening.”
Of course you would want to engage in a good discussion, and not playground humour (of which I have loads if you prefer that) :-)
Take care
Lee
Read More......