RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Transcendental argument for God

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Not bad so far. But I would like to see some links and/or references, though. Also, some categories wouldn't hurt this in the slightest. Recklessly Noise Punk What's this button do? Uh oh.... 14:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is really some of the most awful and rambling writing I have ever read.

Thank you for your highly specific feedback. Scarlet A.pngmoral 20:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am trying the best not to be rude, but...[edit]

Other than the first section it does not seem to be describing about TAG as seen from other places like wp or places like this.

The problems I am having:

  1. In section "Modern appearances", it DOES NOT matter whether you have a scientific consensus of where morality comes from, because TAG is not touching on that, it's the underlying argument (that logic/knowledge/morality is impossible without the presupposition of God) that is problematic
  2. The argument TAG is presented is much more insidious and subtle than the section "Why TAG is not even wrong" uses.
    1. "TAG proposes that, if Yahweh exists, then it is logically possible that He is also an ultimate moral authority from which humans draw a sense of right from wrong, ..." No, TAG does not propose that. Normal AG does. TAG proposes that "If morality exists, it must be from <insert deity's name here>." TAG does not typically uses phrases like "it is possible" in connecting God to other things.
  3. Section "How do you know"...
    1. First paragraph is not exclusive to TAG. Normal Morality argument uses it as well.
    2. "... we experience reality because it exists, not because we are conscious of it", Decartes begged to differ.
  4. Section "Touched by his noodly appendage":
    1. first paragraph again has nothing to do with TAG. Argument from personal experience takes that form.
    2. and sadly neither are the last 2.

Can someone take a look? I am suggesting it to be moved to essay space or if keeping the title, need some heavy rewrite. Thieh"6+18=24" 04:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This generally doesn't address the Transcendental Argument for God[edit]

This page is full of strawmen... for one:

"In other words, because Goddidit is claimed to be the answer to every question in epistemology, God necessarily exists."

This isn't even remotely close to what epistemology says...
Epistemology is the study of knowledge itself which states that knowledge is "a well justified true belief".
This relates to the transcendental argument for God in that the transcendental argument deals with the objectification of things that transcend nature itself, such as truth itself. However, in no way does this translate to "Goddidit is the answer to every question in epistemology"

Another strawman fallacy is this:

"The basic idea of TAG is that the premise is that certain things that atheists assume are true can only be true if there is a God."

First of all, this sentence is a redundant mess...
it should just say: "The premise of the transcendental argument is that certain things that atheists assume are true can only be true if there is a God."
Ok... now that the sentence is readable, let us deal with the content.
No, it the transcendental argument does *not* say that "certain things that atheists assume are true can only be true if there is a God", but rather, the transcendental argument says:
Truth itself is a quality that is transcendent of nature itself, and since atheism(usually) entails naturalism, it necessitates that truth itself does not objectively exist.

"These assumptions include logical reasoning is possible,"

That is not an assumption of atheism, that is a necessarily inherited quality of truth itself existing... something that atheism(particularly naturalism, but other forms too) necessarily rejects.

"... that scientific inference is justified,"

this is a necessarily inherited quality of knowledge being possible... which can only be possible if truth itself exists... which is not possible in atheism or atheistic "thinking".

" and that (absolute) moral standards exist."

well, not really...
that is the moral argument for the existence of God, not the transcendental argument for the existence of God... but it is *related* to the transcendental argument for the existence of God in that good itself, a quality that is transcendent of nature itself, cannot exist in a naturalistic world view.

"the TAG maintains that the atheist is assuming God's existence in constructing these argument because logic and science (knowledge) cannot exist without God,..."

no, it does not maintain that "the atheist assumes God's existence in constructing these arguments", but rather it maintains that truth(which is implicit of logic and knowledge) is required for logic and science to be objective in their meaning.

"...and that in order to define "evil" it requires an objective standard that is also impossible without God."

again, you are confusing the moral argument with the transcendental argument for the existence of God. The transcendental arguments that in order to define evil, objective good must exist... objective good dictates *having* objective moral standards(ie a hierarchy of virtues in a given situation), but ought not be confused with them.

" Christian apologists attempt to "prove" that logic, science and objective morality presupposes the Judeo-Christian worldview (while somehow excludes Islam, which is developed upon the same set(s) of worldview)."

actually what many try to prove is the opposite, that *truth itself* is not possible in any atheistic paradigm(naturalism, animism, or solipsism... and even deism which is not quite atheism).

"One of the most common problem Christian apologetics has is that the generalized formulation (i.e. the argument minus the holy book) does not specifically argue for any particular god(s)."

Well.. first of all, this is false...
it argues in favor of the existence of a God(a conscious being) that is necessarily omniscient and transcendent.
However, due to the fact that God is conscious, omniscient, and transcendent... and that it also necessitates that naturalism be particularly *false*... it also requires that this God be omnipresent, omnipotent, and fundamental to reality. Which, essentially is God in every classic sense of the word.
second of all... so what? it is an argument for the existence of God which necessarily refutes atheism... not "An argument for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God which necessarily proves Christianity"

"The problem of morality Main article: Argument from morality, Divine command theory TAG argues that (objective) morality cannot exist without God."

First of all, it seems like you are trying to address the moral argument for the existence of God, when this page is clearly about the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God.
Since I already pointed out that you are operating on a false premise here, I don't think I really need to point out why the rest of this section is false, but I will do so anyway.

"This raises the question: Since the apologist argues that there are differences between right and wrong, Are the differences solely based on God?"

No, that question does *not* arise... and it does not arise for the reason you stated in the very next sentence... this part should be deleted since it is irrelevant.. you should just lead into the next part.
This part should delete the first part of the question and the response that they give and say "If differences between right and wrong are based solely on God, then the following problem arises:"

"From God's perspective there is no difference between right and wrong"

This is a non-sequitur...

" (if there is, that part of morality exists without God)...."

First of all, you could have just condensed this line to say "If there is a difference right and wrong, that part of morality exists without God"
Second of all, you are essentially not presenting any argument here, you are just reiterating "Morality exists without God".... but in a really cumbersome and awkward way. I suspect you have the intention of confusing readers. It almost sounds like the person was drunk when they wrote this part.

", and it is no longer a meaningful statement to say that God is good or morally perfect."

Well, first you actually have to present an argument for the former part of this sentence before you can make this conclusion... so I am gonna have to give this a thumbs down.

"God has problems communicating the differences between right and wrong to anyone in an authentic manner."

As opposed to what? an "inauthentic manner"? Since the person provided a link... let me see what the link says: "Theorem: It is utterly impossible to validate the authenticity of any divine revelation."
oooook... I can see why a person who does not believe in the existence of objective truth itself might have trouble with validating authenticity of *ANYTHING*... but this isn't really helpful to the discussion, it is essentially an argument from ignorance. "I don't know that it is valid, therefore we should ASSUME it is invalid"

"The problem of knowledge TAG argues that without God knowledge is impossible, which the explanation is the following[1]: "How do you know <statement> is true?" can be applied to the explanation of something ad infinitum, so an infinite regress is created."

No... no.... no.... this is wrong.
It is not "how do you know that a given statement is true?"
it is "There is no possible argument for the existence of truth itself, a necessarily transcendent thing, in any given atheist paradigm."(unless maybe your atheist paradigm is solipsism)

"God is used as the terminator of the infinite regress: the ability of God to terminate the infinite regress comes from His omniscience Therefore, God exists."

God is used as an omniscient and transcendent observer to objectify the very notion of truth itself, rather than it relying on subjective human experience to assert truths which can never be verified... and therefore undermined the foundation of all knowledge.

"The problem with such argument is as follows:"

I dont need to address this section since you falsely presented the previous section.

"Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true."

No, it doesnt... it deals with axioms and derives concepts from those axioms.
Axioms are not "pre-suppositions"... they are self-evident truths.
for example: "The truth itself exists." is a self-evident truth since claiming "the truth itself does not exist" is an objective truth claim about truth itself... making the statement self-contradictory.
Since atheists do not believe that truth itself exist objectively(or I have yet to hear a single argument for why nature itself can objectify the concept of "truth itself")...
it is rational to believe that they do not believe that anything that they say is objectively true, which undermines their credibility on any given topic.

"With TAG's argument, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God."

Wrong, the TAG doesn't state that "God created logic" it states that "God objectifies truth"...
it doesn't state that "God is the cause of logic" it states that "God is objectifies of truth itself which necessitates the existence of logic."

"However, if logic is created by or contingent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God."

logic is not contingent on God, the truth itself is.

"And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary"

First of all, I already stated that this is false... second of all.... this is a non-sequitur.
If the principals of logic logic are contingent on God... then it in no way follows that they are not necessary.

"... and God can change it on God's fiat."

that would undermine the concept of logic being OBJECTIVE.... the whole premise of the argument is that God OBJECTIFIES truth itself.... but you didnt even get that from the very start, did you?

"Thus God can change the laws of identity to make it invalid at some point"

No, that would undermined the very concept of the law of identity..
but it appears you have sunken so far into the idea of "subjective truth" that now you are devolving into pure sophistry and post-modernist thinking now.

"Since logic is contingent to God as one of His creation, to argue that God cannot change laws of logic blows away God's omnipotence."

Again, you aren't addressing the Transcendental argument at this point because you aren't dealing with the objective nature of truth itself.

"As a result, the claim that logic is dependent on God is false."

Again, that isn't the claim of the Transcendental argument..
the claim of the transcendental argument is that truth itself is dependent on God and necessarily *impossible* in any naturalist paradigm.

"Science presupposes Uniformitarianism. That is, that natural law has always operated as it operates at present and there has been no violations of such laws. "

Wrong. Science does not presuppose ANYTHING.
Science is a methodology of determining what is true and separating it from what is false... it is a sub-branch of rationalist thinking that is focused primarily on empiricism.
However, empiricism is limited and rationalism is superior because empiricism is internally inconsistent... the reason for this is because there is no empirical evidence of empiricism... but there is rational evidence for rationalism.
One of the most rationalist axioms that can ever be stated is that truth itself exists... all logic, and therefore all knowledge(including the fact that God necessarily exists to objectify the concept of truth itself), is derived from this axiom.

"However, Christianity also presupposes a version of God that gives miracles, which is by definition a direct violation of these laws."

Again, you are obsessing over Christianity and not over Theism...
which is what you *should* be trying to refute. Must be difficult to make truth claims when you don't believe that truth exists.

"Therefore Science presupposes the non-existence of any miracle-granting gods (God(s) that don't ever give miracles fall(s) into the category of Non-Overlapping Magisteria and are thus more compatible)."

Again "science" doesn't presuppose ANYTHING...
stating that "science presupposes x" is not science... that is "scientism" or an appeal to science-ideologues and NOT an appeal to science or scientists.

"Which God(s): to argue that the scripture(s) of one particular religion is correct reduces the case to being "My book is better than your book". To make it worse, all the scriptures give a somewhat different (though also broadly similar) list of moral obligations to follow, and the interpretation of the passages from the same scriptures can be different as well. Since there is no rational way to reconcile the differences without resorting to the argument of which book is correct, morality in this sense is not exactly objective."

This is not an argument against the existence of God, this merely states "they can't all be right about everything"(something that should be self-evident)... however, I don't see how this belongs here at all seeing as it doesn't refute anything concerning the existence of ALL concepts of concerning God.
You should make an attempt at trying to refute the qualities of God attached to one being, rather than stating something about how "they all cant be right"... this is just sloppy at best.

"Since God created such morality, can God change it?"

This is a non-sequitur...
But I suggest you do some reading about the immutability of God.

"If God cannot change what he had created, then God cannot be omnipotent."

It is a lot less about "God can't" and a lot more about "God, in God's infinite goodness and wisdom, won't"... especially since God's goodness is an OBJECTIVE transcendent concept, it is necessarily immutable.

"A TAG apologist might make the following statement:"

strawman fallacy...

"Playing the faith card Consider by analogy, the following conversation:"

Another Strawman fallacy... Why do you even bother with that dribble?

Ihaveabighead (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Bighead, if it is your intention to attempt a line-by-line refutation of this article... I would recommend creating a separate Essay to do so. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
inquisitor, this is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever come across on the internet... it doesn't even remotely address the subject matter that it claims to be concerned with. Ihaveabighead (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I can only assume that you're being needlessly hyperbolic with your language... or haven't read too many articles on the internet. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this one is pretty bad. David Bentley Hart's books kind of knock this article hard. For example, he does show that atheists often misconstrue what is meant by 'God', and that if such a transcendent being exists, it will necessarily be trinitarian.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
[citation needed] The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 14:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)