Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Transcendental Argument for God

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:23:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is anyone here aware of it? I never see Theists use this argument, but I hear it's one of the better arguments, but too complex so hasn't gained popularity.

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God:

1. Logical Absolutes

a. Law of Identity
b. Law of Non-Contradiction
c. Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)

2. Logical absolutes are truth statements such as:

a. That which exists has attributes and a nature.
b. Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
c. Something cannot bring itself into existence.
d. Truth is not self-contradictory.
f. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.

3. Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse.

a. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
b. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
c. If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true.
d. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth.
e. If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.

4. Logical Absolutes are transcendent.

a. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
b. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
c. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.

5. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.

a. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
b. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
c. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
d. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.

6. Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.

a. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
b. Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not.

7. Thoughts reflect the mind

a. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
b. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
c. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
d. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.

Here's the full argument: http://www.carm.org...

To sum it up though, basically, logical absolutes exist. Logic is a process of the mind, but logical absolutes exist regardless. The logical absolutes must have come from an independent, supreme mind that we call God.

My usual criticism of course is that none of the arguments for God argue for a specific one. They only go so far as to possibly validate Deism and go no further than that.

Have at it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:29:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've addressed it before in a couple of debates. It's basically an argument formed by denying foundationalism and then adding some extravagant points.

Like many other arguments, it's utterly horrendous. A cursory reading of philosophy can eradicate many, if not all, of it's premises.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:38:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's not too complex to use. lol I used to use it all the time back when I was a hardcore presuppositionalist.

It has some salient points but other points are off.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:40:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:38:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's not too complex to use. lol I used to use it all the time back when I was a hardcore presuppositionalist.

It has some salient points but other points are off.

Yeah, it's actually over-complicated. I was able to sum it up in a few words, lol.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:44:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:41:12 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
lol carm.org

I despise Matt Slick. He got embarrassed by Theoretical Bullsh*t on youtube and backed down.

I like TBS. Of course he's wrong on a lot of things (^_^) but he is smart and offers intelligent criticisms.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:49:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It just looks like you repeat the same idea again and again in a slightly different form and then make a massive illogical leap.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:56:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:40:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2010 11:38:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's not too complex to use. lol I used to use it all the time back when I was a hardcore presuppositionalist.

It has some salient points but other points are off.

Yeah, it's actually over-complicated. I was able to sum it up in a few words, lol.

Lol. And to answer your question I think KRFournier (sp?) has used this argument in some of his debates on God's existence. I remember seeing it when I was looking at random debates. You could check them out.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 12:00:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:49:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It just looks like you repeat the same idea again and again in a slightly different form and then make a massive illogical leap.

Who? This was an argument formulated (or rather, modified) by an apologist named Matt Slick.

The original version is quite terrible, or should I say, even worse, lol.

"Original TAG argument:

1. Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality)
2. If there is no god, knowledge is not possible
3. Therefore God exists.

The TAG argues that, because the triune God of the Bible, being completely logical, uniform, and good, exhibits a character in the created order and the creatures themselves (especially in humans), human knowledge and experience are possible. This reasoning implies that all other worldviews, when followed to their logical conclusions, descend into absurdity, arbitrariness or inconsistency." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

^^^
ROFL.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 12:04:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/11/2010 12:00:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2010 11:49:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It just looks like you repeat the same idea again and again in a slightly different form and then make a massive illogical leap.

Who? This was an argument formulated (or rather, modified) by an apologist named Matt Slick.

Yea sorry, the YOU was not really intended.


The original version is quite terrible, or should I say, even worse, lol.

"Original TAG argument:

1. Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality)
2. If there is no god, knowledge is not possible
3. Therefore God exists.

The TAG argues that, because the triune God of the Bible, being completely logical, uniform, and good, exhibits a character in the created order and the creatures themselves (especially in humans), human knowledge and experience are possible. This reasoning implies that all other worldviews, when followed to their logical conclusions, descend into absurdity, arbitrariness or inconsistency." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

^^^
ROFL.

Oh dear lord... I'd suggest that such a terrible distortion of logic is so dire that there must surely be a God in order to prevent it destroying the universe.

Your version is infinitely better, but I still think it's flawed. If I had more sleep I'd say more than that.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 3:06:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:23:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Is anyone here aware of it? I never see Theists use this argument, but I hear it's one of the better arguments, but too complex so hasn't gained popularity.

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God:

1. Logical Absolutes

a. Law of Identity
b. Law of Non-Contradiction
c. Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)

2. Logical absolutes are truth statements such as:

a. That which exists has attributes and a nature.
b. Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
c. Something cannot bring itself into existence.
d. Truth is not self-contradictory.
f. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.

3. Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse.

a. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
b. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
c. If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true.
d. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth.
e. If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.

4. Logical Absolutes are transcendent.

a. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
b. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
c. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.

5. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.

a. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
b. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
c. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
d. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.

6. Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.

a. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
b. Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not.

7. Thoughts reflect the mind

a. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
b. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
c. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
d. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.

Here's the full argument: http://www.carm.org...

To sum it up though, basically, logical absolutes exist. Logic is a process of the mind, but logical absolutes exist regardless. The logical absolutes must have come from an independent, supreme mind that we call God.

My usual criticism of course is that none of the arguments for God argue for a specific one. They only go so far as to possibly validate Deism and go no further than that.

Have at it.

Romans 11:9-11 (in Context) Romans 11 (Whole Chapter)
12.Ephesians 4:18
They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.
The Cross.. the Cross.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 2:43:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 3:06:32 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Romans 11:9-11 (in Context) Romans 11 (Whole Chapter)
12.Ephesians 4:18
They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.


--You should argue your point instead of just calling all non-believers ignorant.

--And about the argument in the OP... it is terrible.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
TheBoxTheorem
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 11:02:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeah, it's a pretty sad/nonsensical argument. Basically, all it's saying is that for us to conceptualize something, we must have an absolute of something, and the absolute of good is God. Of course, that makes no sense whatsoever. I might as well say that to comprehend stinkiness, there needs to be some absolute of smelling bad, and this thing is called God. It's about as strawman as it gets
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 11:10:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 11:02:14 PM, TheBoxTheorem wrote:
Yeah, it's a pretty sad/nonsensical argument. Basically, all it's saying is that for us to conceptualize something, we must have an absolute of something, and the absolute of good is God. Of course, that makes no sense whatsoever. I might as well say that to comprehend stinkiness, there needs to be some absolute of smelling bad, and this thing is called God. It's about as strawman as it gets

...that...isn't even close to what the argument is....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 11:12:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
6. Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
They aren't. In a world without concepts, they are still just as true. One has concepts of them. I have a concept of rocks too. But they'd still exist without me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 2:10:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago

Romans 11:9-11 (in Context) Romans 11 (Whole Chapter)
12.Ephesians 4:18
They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.


I think we should just ignore DAT from now on. He's turned into even more of a troll than in earlier days.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 2:15:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:44:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2010 11:41:12 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
lol carm.org

I despise Matt Slick. He got embarrassed by Theoretical Bullsh*t on youtube and backed down.

I like TBS. Of course he's wrong on a lot of things (^_^) but he is smart and offers intelligent criticisms.

Just on a side note, Veritas48 (a long time rival of TBS) offered a pretty good video on the Kalam argument recently, which a lot of people who don't understand the argument would do well to watch (and that includes all the people who think they understand it but don't).
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 4:37:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 2:10:19 AM, Kinesis wrote:

Romans 11:9-11 (in Context) Romans 11 (Whole Chapter)
12.Ephesians 4:18
They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.


I think we should just ignore DAT from now on. He's turned into even more of a troll than in earlier days.

I've done everything I can to encourage him to post something of substance.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 3:06:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 2:43:44 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 4/13/2010 3:06:32 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Romans 11:9-11 (in Context) Romans 11 (Whole Chapter)
12.Ephesians 4:18
They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.


--You should argue your point instead of just calling all non-believers ignorant.

--And about the argument in the OP... it is terrible.

You should concentrate on gaining a little credibility on DDO before you start giving (bad) advice to The Establishment.
The Cross.. the Cross.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 3:07:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 4:37:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 2:10:19 AM, Kinesis wrote:

Romans 11:9-11 (in Context) Romans 11 (Whole Chapter)
12.Ephesians 4:18
They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.


I think we should just ignore DAT from now on. He's turned into even more of a troll than in earlier days.

I've done everything I can to encourage him to post something of substance.

Yeah, you're such a great guy.. a real friend.

*waits for this sarcasm to be taken literally*
The Cross.. the Cross.