Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

TAG (Argument For God's Existence)

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:47:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 10:30:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Successful argument? Discuss...

Given that the possibility of knowledge is highly contentious and depending on what constitutes "justification" (in epistemic sense), then it's easy enough to simply deny that knowledge is possible.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:49:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 10:47:47 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:30:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Successful argument? Discuss...

Given that the possibility of knowledge is highly contentious and depending on what constitutes "justification" (in epistemic sense), then it's easy enough to simply deny that knowledge is possible.

Deny that knowledge is possible? That seems a little extreme.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:51:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 10:49:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:47:47 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:30:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Successful argument? Discuss...

Given that the possibility of knowledge is highly contentious and depending on what constitutes "justification" (in epistemic sense), then it's easy enough to simply deny that knowledge is possible.

Deny that knowledge is possible? That seems a little extreme.

Knowledge is a justified true belief. How do we ascertain what is true and what qualifies as justification?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:52:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's s self-refuting position. You can claim that knowledge is possible, but do you "know" this for a fact? If you do, then knowledge is clearly possible. If you don't, then how can we be sure that your argument is correct?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:53:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
(correction)
* It's a self-refuting position. You can claim that knowledge is not possible, but do you "know" this for a fact? If you do, then knowledge is clearly possible. If you don't, then how can we be sure that your argument is correct?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:57:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, it's not a good argument. There are no good arguments for or against God; we're stuck dealing with infinity forever. Agnosticism is the position of the logician.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:59:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
According to the idea, knowledge exists because God exists, however...

-We had no knowledge in the past, therefore God could not have existed in the past.
-The Bible asserts that God has always existed.
-Therefore the Bible is wrong.

At the very least it shows that the Bible is wrong.

The real problem with it though, is that it is practically self-proving, because it asserts itself on the grounds of that which can neither be proven nor disproven, and therefore it must be true. It can be said that the idea falls under the fallacy of argument from silence, whereby because there is no evidence against God (and assuming that knowledge comes from God), that must mean God exists.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:00:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 10:53:29 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
(correction)
* It's a self-refuting position. You can claim that knowledge is not possible, but do you "know" this for a fact? If you do, then knowledge is clearly possible. If you don't, then how can we be sure that your argument is correct?

We can't. But not knowing it is correct doesn't mean it isn't correct. So it hasn't refuted itself in the sense of a reductio ad absurdum.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:03:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:00:04 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:53:29 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
(correction)
* It's a self-refuting position. You can claim that knowledge is not possible, but do you "know" this for a fact? If you do, then knowledge is clearly possible. If you don't, then how can we be sure that your argument is correct?

We can't. But not knowing it is correct doesn't mean it isn't correct. So it hasn't refuted itself in the sense of a reductio ad absurdum.

So A is possibly not A, drafter?
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:31:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Logic exists, how do prove God gave us it without a bare assertion? The only ways I've seen it happen commit the fallacy of composition (all thoughts we observe have minds, therefore logic needs to originate from a mind).

If there was non-logic at the beginning, then logic could come from that (if it can't then there's already logic). So, either logic exists apart from God or logic can come into existence without God.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:39:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:31:01 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Logic exists, how do prove God gave us it without a bare assertion? The only ways I've seen it happen commit the fallacy of composition (all thoughts we observe have minds, therefore logic needs to originate from a mind).

If there was non-logic at the beginning, then logic could come from that (if it can't then there's already logic). So, either logic exists apart from God or logic can come into existence without God.

Well, I just deny that the laws of logic are necessary. Basically, I don't accept that that they exist in every possible world. However, I would still hold that every possible world is hypothetically describable by the laws if said laws were to exist in those worlds (thus, there would still be no perfectly spherical cubes in any possible world). The laws of logic are contingent, upon whoever thought of them (Aristotle?). However, the consistency of the reality of which they describe remain necessary. I think the laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. The laws just describe the nature of existence, which is the way it is regardless of any laws that describe its consistency.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:05:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:39:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:31:01 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Logic exists, how do prove God gave us it without a bare assertion? The only ways I've seen it happen commit the fallacy of composition (all thoughts we observe have minds, therefore logic needs to originate from a mind).

If there was non-logic at the beginning, then logic could come from that (if it can't then there's already logic). So, either logic exists apart from God or logic can come into existence without God.

Well, I just deny that the laws of logic are necessary. Basically, I don't accept that that they exist in every possible world. However, I would still hold that every possible world is hypothetically describable by the laws if said laws were to exist in those worlds (thus, there would still be no perfectly spherical cubes in any possible world). The laws of logic are contingent, upon whoever thought of them (Aristotle?). However, the consistency of the reality of which they describe remain necessary. I think the laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. The laws just describe the nature of existence, which is the way it is regardless of any laws that describe its consistency.

I agree that they're descriptions of existence. Thinking of them as prescriptive leads the TAG proponent to my second objection.

I've seen TAGers object, saying in order to describe something it must first assume logic. So they claim that objection is circular.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:44:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 12:05:31 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:39:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:31:01 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Logic exists, how do prove God gave us it without a bare assertion? The only ways I've seen it happen commit the fallacy of composition (all thoughts we observe have minds, therefore logic needs to originate from a mind).

If there was non-logic at the beginning, then logic could come from that (if it can't then there's already logic). So, either logic exists apart from God or logic can come into existence without God.

Well, I just deny that the laws of logic are necessary. Basically, I don't accept that that they exist in every possible world. However, I would still hold that every possible world is hypothetically describable by the laws if said laws were to exist in those worlds (thus, there would still be no perfectly spherical cubes in any possible world). The laws of logic are contingent, upon whoever thought of them (Aristotle?). However, the consistency of the reality of which they describe remain necessary. I think the laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. The laws just describe the nature of existence, which is the way it is regardless of any laws that describe its consistency.

I agree that they're descriptions of existence. Thinking of them as prescriptive leads the TAG proponent to my second objection.

I've seen TAGers object, saying in order to describe something it must first assume logic. So they claim that objection is circular.

First of all, what do you mean by "it"? Do you mean that which is being described, that which is doing the describing, or both? Also, circular reasoning is when one assumes a conclusion in an attempt to show that conclusion true. What conclusion am I assuming, in my attempt to show that conclusion true? Without this question answered, it is not clear how my objection is circular reasoning.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:48:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 12:05:31 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:39:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:31:01 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Logic exists, how do prove God gave us it without a bare assertion? The only ways I've seen it happen commit the fallacy of composition (all thoughts we observe have minds, therefore logic needs to originate from a mind).

If there was non-logic at the beginning, then logic could come from that (if it can't then there's already logic). So, either logic exists apart from God or logic can come into existence without God.

Well, I just deny that the laws of logic are necessary. Basically, I don't accept that that they exist in every possible world. However, I would still hold that every possible world is hypothetically describable by the laws if said laws were to exist in those worlds (thus, there would still be no perfectly spherical cubes in any possible world). The laws of logic are contingent, upon whoever thought of them (Aristotle?). However, the consistency of the reality of which they describe remain necessary. I think the laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. The laws just describe the nature of existence, which is the way it is regardless of any laws that describe its consistency.

I agree that they're descriptions of existence. Thinking of them as prescriptive leads the TAG proponent to my second objection.

I've seen TAGers object, saying in order to describe something it must first assume logic. So they claim that objection is circular.

Also, even if it has to be necessary that every possible world only contains states of affairs that are describable by the laws of logic if the laws of logic were in that world, it wouldn't follow from this that the laws of logic themselves are necessary, and must exist in every possible world.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:50:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, every possible world must contain states of affairs describable by the laws of logic if they were there. That doesn't mean there actually has to be the laws of logic, or describers on every possible world.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:06:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's been awhile since I've thought about TAG, but IIRC:

A big problem is this idea that we have to metaphysically account for things like logic and math (which, not being materialistic, must come from God). It comes from an eurocentric bias.

They claim for instance "A=A" and "Law of Exclusded Middle" exist without metaphysical manifestation.

Paralogic shoves aside the Law of Excluded middle and can explain coherent sentences none of the listed "logical absolutes."

Does it have some metaphysical existence?

In hinduism, the assumption "A=A" fails grammatically but using the negative. For instance,, explaining the relationship between "God" and objects. The Vedas (their holy book) constantly described how no object exists which is non-different from God.

Good f*cking luck using Western Logic on that.

Also consider their view of logic: logic wasn't some abstract thing. The brain has a part which "produces logic" when given information. If the brain is faulty, the logic output is faulty. Thus, "logical arguments" consist not of citing laws but of showing the "logic part" of the brain is not working correctly.

I suppose the TAG response would be that we're simply ignoring the "absolute logic" which is inherently better.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 5:30:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 10:49:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:47:47 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:30:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Successful argument? Discuss...

Given that the possibility of knowledge is highly contentious and depending on what constitutes "justification" (in epistemic sense), then it's easy enough to simply deny that knowledge is possible.

Deny that knowledge is possible? That seems a little extreme.

That's what the TAG does....were you talking about a different TAG?

The problem with the TAG is that it is nothing but a presuppositional apologetic for whatever Theistic worldview you want to argue; it presents assumptive circular logic and in the end, it is logically self refuting.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater