The Transcendental Argument for God

[David Quinn]

Since there is no logical necessity for positing God as the stand-alone answer, it is in fact begging the question. It is assuming the answer before it begins.

It seems that either you didn't read what I wrote, or that you didn't understand it, but in either case you have asserted a contrary position without refuting my justification of my own position.

I have refuted the argument you have offered here. If you have another argument for your "position", I'll be happy to refute that one as well.

Contrary to your assertion, premise 2 is not "assuming the answer": that would entail an unconditional assertion of God's existence, whereas premise 2 is actually a conditional assertion of God's existence (i.e. as a consequence of accounting for logical absolutes).

Conditional or not, an assertion is meaningless if there is no logic behind it.

Step 2 states that the existence of God is the "only" way to account for logical absolutes. Since it has no logical basis, it is a purely made-up assertion. It is a made-up assertion designed to support a made-up conclusion, one tailored for Christian consumption.

You've already agreed that it is an unsound argument, so I don't know why you are continuing to push this tripe on us.

-

[guest_of_logic]

Contrary to your assertion, premise 2 is not "assuming the answer": that would entail an unconditional assertion of God's existence, whereas premise 2 is actually a conditional assertion of God's existence (i.e. as a consequence of accounting for logical absolutes).

Conditional or not, an assertion is meaningless if there is no logic behind it.

That's entirely beside the point: whether or not a (conditional) assertion is "meaningless" has nothing to do with the fallacy of begging the question. In any case, I disagree with your characterisation of that premise as "meaningless", although I agree that it is false.

Step 2 states that the existence of God is the "only" way to account for logical absolutes. Since it has no logical basis, it is a purely made-up assertion. It is a made-up assertion designed to support a made-up conclusion, one tailored for Christian consumption.

Which, again, is entirely beside the point: that a particular assertion (premise) is "made up" does not entail the fallacy of begging the question.

You've already agreed that it is an unsound argument, so I don't know why you are continuing to push this tripe on us.

Well then let me explain: I see the accusation "logical fallacy!" bandied about far too freely on internet forums, and I don't like to see the phrase misused, so I try to point out occasions where it is being misused. This is one such occasion.

[Ataraxia]

But it's not the purpose of step 2 to establish that: it's the purpose of the argument as a whole to establish that.

Laird,

The point of deductive syllogistic arguments is to use premises that we know/accept are true to come a conclusion we may not have,thereby learning something new.So one can't use the conclusion as one of the premises,as it has not already been proven/established.eg the Socrates is mortal proof.

In this case he has made a more 'greedy' truth statement in premise 2 in relation to God,than even the conclusion.

wiki: Deductive reasoning, sometimes called deductive logic, is reasoning which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premises) to conclusions, which must be true if the premises are true. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Step 2 is even less likely then the conclusion.Hence Begging the question,or a bare asserion.

Laird: Non sequitur. That a premise is "less likely" (I'm guessing that you mean "less likely to be true") than the conclusion is not a sufficient condition (hell, it's not even a necessary condition) for either of the fallacies that you mention.

Yes it is.It is exactly what the 'begging the question fallacy' speaks to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

wiki: Contemporary usage and variations
The traditional Aristotelian usage is frequently supplanted by a contemporary usage that refers to presenting evidence (in support of a conclusion) that is less likely to be accepted than merely asserting the conclusion.
A specific form of this is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion which is no more known to be true than the more specific assertion:

All intentional acts of killing human beings are morally wrong.
The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being. Therefore,
The death penalty is morally wrong.

If the first premise is accepted as an axiom within some moral system or code, this reasoning is a sound argument against the death penalty. If not, it is in fact a weaker argument than a mere assertion that the death penalty is wrong, since the first premise is less firmly based than the conclusion (the premise can be false while the conclusion is true - that is, the premise is logically "stronger" than the conclusion).

[guest_of_logic]

OK, Ataraxia, I accept what you write and quote. I wasn't aware of that contemporary usage of begging the question - I was only aware of the traditional usage where a premise assumes - explicitly or implicitly - the conclusion. I still don't think, though, that this argument commits the bare assertion fallacy, at least as Wikipedia defines it, but as I wrote earlier, other people seem to use it more liberally than the Wikipedia definition seems to allow, and perhaps you are one of those people.

[brokenhead]

I'm not sure if theoretical bullshit mentioned it --I suppose he points to it indirectly with his 3 questions-- but the biggest problem I see in the TAG argument is that it employs the 'begging the question fallacy' or "bare assertion fallacy'
much the same way most arguments for God have, stretching back to Aquinas.

In the TB vids I have watched, TB seems to degenerate almost to ad hominem levels when refuting Matt Slick. Which is fine; I am unconvinced by Slick's rapid, self-possessed assertions. That is, while I personally have reasons for a faith in God's existence, I have never accepted anyone's proof that God exists, as I believe equally strongly that no such proof is possible. In other words - and I think someone here said it - Slick is a bit too slick.

So Ataraxia, if you are saying the TAG argument fails, or commits the "bare assertion fallacy," I would tend to agree if it is intended as any kind of absolute or even conditional proof. I do not think, however, the question of how logic itself arises is without merit on these or any other grounds.

Quite simply.

If the existence of logical truths in the mind necessitate a higher mind authoring them, then this higher mind with logical truths also necessarily has an even higher mind authoring it, and so on ad infinitum.

And I think this simply does not follow in the real world. If you confine yourself to laws of thought, and confine your acceptance of valid laws to those which conform to formal logic, then this does in fact represent an intellectual cul de sac.

Briefly, my objection is also quite simple. The premise you give here can be restated as: The existence of logical truths in the mind necessitates a higher mind authoring them. Now think carefully about this premise, as it carries an implicit assumption. This assumption is exactly the thing we are discussing. If you constrain yourself purely to what we can know empirically, then you can make this alternative phrasing of the premise without any loss of generality as far as perceivable facts go: Premise - The existence of logical truths in the human mind necessitates a higher mind authoring them. This obviously in no way contradicts the first form of the premise, as it is less general.

This form of the premise results in a conclusion of the form: This higher mind may or may not also require an even higher mind authoring it. In other words, if logic in our human minds prompts us to suppose, as Matt does, that this very logic must have arisen originally - or at any rate before it arose in the human mind - in some higher mind, by this very reasoning we cannot conclude that this higher mind must be or have been constrained by the same laws of thought.

The validity as I see it comes from common sense if nothing else. If what we have is logic, and that logic must have been authored by some mind greater than our own, then what we can assert about that mind must be limited, at least in comparison to the assertions which that mind might make. In other words, the ad infinitum scenario you state above, and which has been made by countless others no doubt, may indeed reside within the laws of thought, yet does not necessarily correspond to the laws of reality, assuming there are such laws. Indeed, it is entirely dismissive of further exploration and/or consideration.

Consider a precocious child, who may develop a fully formed Weltanschauung to completely describe his world. In doing so, he makes the error of identifying this world (his own) with the world. Such a child will cease to learn and grow. His parents may be far less precocious, but because they have never ceased to grow, their way of dealing with life will be more functional, even in the absence of any absolute worldview. In this sense, is the parents' truth not, in a very real sense, more correct than that of the child?

I think seeking or attempting proofs as to whether or not God exists may be natural; expecting to invent or discover one could very well be more harmful than simply futile.

[brokenhead]

If you constrain yourself purely to what we can know empirically, then you can make this alternative phrasing of the premise without any loss of generality as far as perceivable facts go: Premise - The existence of logical truths in the human mind necessitates a higher mind authoring them. This obviously in no way contradicts the first form of the premise, as it is less general.

I reread what I wrote here and I think I need to clarify just a bit, as I appear to be saying two different things. I say that the second phrasing of the premise does not entail any loss of generality, then I go on to say it is a less general claim. It is indeed less general, as it deals with a specific kind of mind - the human mind, whereas the first formulation of the premise does not specify what kind of mind. However, since we have not proved the existence of a higher type of mind, or even assumed that one is possible, when we formulated the more general initial premise, we in practice do not experience a loss of generality by specifying a human mind in the new formulation. Technically, there is a loss of generality, as we now cannot be speaking of any lesser type of mind either, but the subhuman mind really hasn't been the focus of our examination. But in practice, we actually have been investigating logic as we know it to be and only as we know it to be, which exists in the human mind in its highest known form.

The point is the same: any [higher] mind capable of creating logic itself - "authoring" logic - cannot logically be said (by humans) to also be constrained by that same logic. The ad infinitum argument made above thus is not valid.

[guest_of_logic]

In the TB vids I have watched, TB seems to degenerate almost to ad hominem levels when refuting Matt Slick.

I'm very surprised to see you say that. Perhaps you have watched some of his videos that I haven't. In the ones that I've seen, the closest that TB gets to ad hominem is when he refers to the TAG as "this little argument" (or something like that) with a hint of an attitude of superiority. It might have been slightly condescending, but to describe it as "almost ad hominem" is grossly inaccurate, IMO. But hey, if you have other examples then please go ahead and provide them.

In response to the rest of your posts: if the absolute laws of logic require an accounting for, then why doesn't God?

I mean, I agree that the specific reasoning of the TAG doesn't lead to this requirement (because it has already accounted for the absolute laws of logic, so there's nothing left to be explained), but the general reasoning does: God seems just as worthy a candidate for requiring an accounting as the absolute laws of logic, wouldn't you agree?

[brokenhead]

It might have been slightly condescending, but to describe it as "almost ad hominem" is grossly inaccurate, IMO. But hey, if you have other examples then please go ahead and provide them.

No, I'm sure in fact that you have seen more of his videos than I have. I think condescending might be a better description for what I was getting. Any disagreement he has with Matt Slick that stems from a personal reaction does not appeal to me; but you are correct in pointing out that this does not constitute ad hominem argument.

In response to the rest of your posts: if the absolute laws of logic require an accounting for, then why doesn't God?

Well, one obvious reason is that we know the absolute laws of logic exist, and we do not know that God exists. I may indeed believe I know God exists, but even I would have to admit there is a difference between claiming the existence of a thing which can be readily demonstrated and claiming the existence of a thing which cannot be so demonstrated. If I tell you I know God exists and I know I the laws of human logic exist, this may very well be the literal truth as far as I am capable of conceiving it. Yet my ability to provide either proof or evidence for the two things differs widely.

And that's just the most obvious reason. Even if we had a consensus agreement that both things exist, we could hardly agree on what constitutes each thing. We'll concur on the basic laws of logical thought, perhaps, but we are less likely to agree on what is meant by the name God.

God seems just as worthy a candidate for requiring an accounting as the absolute laws of logic, wouldn't you agree?

I am not so sure I can agree with you here, at least not with the way you have worded this. What do you mean by "require an accounting"? Is that the same as "examine and ponder with everything you have"? God does seem worthy of that, yes, as soon as you concede the possibility that he exists, regardless of what others have told you about him. But the more you invest in these activities, the more it should become apparent that God does not readily lend himself - or itself - to an "accounting" of any kind. For whom, then, would such an accounting be a requirement?

If the TAG argument is valid, that is, if we let it convince us that a higher mind must exist, why would it be a rational conclusion that the lower mind can ever "account" for the higher? Don't get me wrong, Laird, I am not saying you should stop trying. I am just curious as to why you think that a rational assessment of Deity could suffice as an account, given the necessarily asymmetrical relationship between man and this Deity?

[guest_of_logic]

Broke, like you (at least I seem to recall you writing words to this effect earlier in this thread) I don't think that the Christian God, Yahweh, can be proved to exist, although I do believe that His existence can be disproved - at least I am convinced in the proof. The particular, definitive, argument that I'm referring to is "The logical problem of evil" (which many people think that Plantinga successfully refuted, and which the article that I linked you to maintains to be the case, but which I disagree with), and there's a related weaker one that is generally considered more acceptable, although it's not as definitive a proof as the preceding one: "The evidential problem of evil".

Anyway, the point of my last post was to explain one reason why I think that proofs for Yahweh's existence commonly fail, which is that they posit that something about existence (possibly the universe itself) can only be explained if some higher power - i.e. Yahweh - exists, whilst failing to apply the same reasoning to the existence of Yahweh, because if they were to do so then they would end in infinite regress and Yahweh would no longer be the ultimate creator that they are trying to prove Him to be.

Having said that, I'm talking solely about the inability to prove the existence of Yahweh through those sorts of techniques, and the inability to prove His existence through those techniques doesn't rule the possibility of His existence out (although, as I wrote above, I believe that some arguments do). If, as many secularist maintain, the universe doesn't need a creator, then, from their perspective, nor need Yahweh be created (caused), and so, from the secular perspective, the only relevant objection in terms of causality to claims of Yahweh's existence is that those claims violate Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor, however, simply guides us as to what's most likely or most plausible, and can't actually rule anything out definitively.

[brokenhead]

Broke, like you (at least I seem to recall you writing words to this effect earlier in this thread) I don't think that the Christian God, Yahweh, can be proved to exist, although I do believe that His existence can be disproved - at least I am convinced in the proof.

I am vaguely uncomfortable with the idea that any logical argument concerning the existence of something which subsumes logic, should be taken as a final verdict, QED. This pertains to both sides of the argument.

Anyway, the point of my last post was to explain one reason why I think that proofs for Yahweh's existence commonly fail, which is that they posit that something about existence (possibly the universe itself) can only be explained if some higher power - i.e. Yahweh - exists, whilst failing to apply the same reasoning to the existence of Yahweh, because if they were to do so then they would end in infinite regress and Yahweh would no longer be the ultimate creator that they are trying to prove Him to be.

And this is largely the reason for my vague discomfort.

The problem of infinite regress is a symptom of the limitations of the logical method that is being employed. Take for example a thinker in an age before people comprehended that we reside on an enormous spheroid orb. If he were to contemplate what lay outside the world he saw and knew, he might use a logical method. He might say," If I walk for one day in a given direction, I will observe such and such. If I walk two days, this is what I shall see. I know these things, because I have done them. I also know someone who has walked three days, and he has related to me what he has seen, and it is consistent with what I have seen. Therefore, if I walk a thousand days I can deduce what I shall see." Logic alone cannot prepare him for the fact that if he walked enough days, he would end up where he began.

Having said that, I'm talking solely about the inability to prove the existence of Yahweh through those sorts of techniques, and the inability to prove His existence through those techniques doesn't rule the possibility of His existence out (although, as I wrote above, I believe that some arguments do).

I believe that some arguments merely indicate the logical errors in one's concept of Deity. Again, my fairly wizened point of view is that God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. But if God does exist, I can readily see why he would want this to be the case. If he does exist, then his existence cannot be disproven simply because he does exist. But if he does exist, why should it be so difficult to prove he does, or impossible as I believe? I think this is because he knows such a logical technique would always be employed, and he doesn't want that. It would obviate the need for an experiential approach. If someone else could QED his existence, then why would anyone go out and try to find him?

I read the links you gave here, Laird. I think the second one gave me problems because there seems to be a lack of distinction drawn between the concepts of evil and suffering. I reject this. I believe the notion of evil has to be confined to acts of men, not acts of nature that may cause suffering.

I also have difficulty with the belief held by many people that "God works in mysterious ways." I take quite literally the quote "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." Often in my life I have witnessed things or things have happened to me which I cannot explain, yet seem to be extremely meaningful when compared to other occurrences. It is sometimes possible to fathom the meaning without necessarily being able to relate it to another person. Often, in fact, the most poignant of life's lessons will come in a form which only you could recognize. Perhaps a good working definition of art is that it is the attempt to fashion an experience of some sort for the viewer which conveys just such meanings and realizations. Different viewers may perceive different shades of meaning, but successful art cannot be devoid of meaning.

And finally on this attempt to ratiocinate about something which subsumes ratiocination. One of the attributes of God handed down to us by the Judeo-Christian tradition is that "God is everywhere." I have problems with this, too. If God is everywhere, why did that little girl just witness her beagle puppy run over by a pickup? I think that if God exists, and I believe he does, the omnipresence idea is conceptually faulty. I believe that God has divested himself of absolute and infinite qualities, and this very divestment is what we observe as the worlds of space and time, the material realms. It is not that he is everywhere, but in everyone. Wherever a person goes, it is there he can make God manifest from within himself. It may be the only free choice one can make, depending on which philosophy you subscribe to. But here is the most important point of all, Laird: If the philosophy would maintain it is womanly, weak and/or delusional to take into your arms the girl who has just seen her beagle puppy squashed, then I must reject that part of the philosophy. The trick it seems is to relinquish attachments without avoiding connections.

Who said life was a bowl of cherries?

[Shahrazad]

Broken,

Logic alone cannot prepare him for the fact that if he walked enough days, he would end up where he began.

He'd really have to swim three-fourths of the way.

Just for the record, I agree with your point.

[brokenhead]

Broken,

Logic alone cannot prepare him for the fact that if he walked enough days, he would end up where he began.

He'd really have to swim three-fourths of the way.

Just for the record, I agree with your point.

Hi, Shah
Don't think that thought didn't go through my head when I drew up the little scenario!

[David Quinn]

guest wrote:
Broke, like you (at least I seem to recall you writing words to this effect earlier in this thread) I don't think that the Christian God, Yahweh, can be proved to exist, although I do believe that His existence can be disproved - at least I am convinced in the proof.

I am vaguely uncomfortable with the idea that any logical argument concerning the existence of something which subsumes logic, should be taken as a final verdict, QED. This pertains to both sides of the argument.

Sorry to prick your enjoyment in feeling "vaguely uncomfortable", but nothing can ever subsume logic. Logic governs everything, even transcendent Gods.

The problem of infinite regress is a symptom of the limitations of the logical method that is being employed.

An infinite regression merely indicates that faulty concepts are being employed. It says nothing one way or the other about the limits of logic. Indeed, it is to the credit of logic that it can highlight the faultiness of a concept by generating an infinite regression.

In truth, an infinite regression is a symptom of the limitations of illogic.

Take for example a thinker in an age before people comprehended that we reside on an enormous spheroid orb. If he were to contemplate what lay outside the world he saw and knew, he might use a logical method. He might say," If I walk for one day in a given direction, I will observe such and such. If I walk two days, this is what I shall see. I know these things, because I have done them. I also know someone who has walked three days, and he has related to me what he has seen, and it is consistent with what I have seen. Therefore, if I walk a thousand days I can deduce what I shall see." Logic alone cannot prepare him for the fact that if he walked enough days, he would end up where he began.

There is nothing logical in what your "thinker' is saying here. He is confusing empirical realities with logical ones. No thinker worth his salt would ever make such a gross error, not even one back in ancient times.

Your agenda is the same as always. You're still trying to protect your Christian beliefs by discrediting logic as much as possible.

-

[Animus]

What's wrong with an infinite regress?

The alternative is something causa sui (self-creating) is it not?

[brokenhead]

Your agenda is the same as always. You're still trying to protect your Christian beliefs by discrediting logic as much as possible.

By no means am I doing that. Unlike you, David, I am not comfortable in thinking I have all the answers. You're the big, fat king in his court at a feast while the peasants fight for scraps outside the castle walls, remember? Why don't you go back inside and leave me to me crumbs?

[Dan Rowden]

He doesn't want you to be satisfied with your crumbs! You peasant!

[David Quinn]

Your agenda is the same as always. You're still trying to protect your Christian beliefs by discrediting logic as much as possible.

By no means am I doing that.

It is exactly what you are doing. Only a person with that kind of agenda can offer such a poor analysis of logic.

Unlike you, David, I am not comfortable in thinking I have all the answers. You're the big, fat king in his court at a feast while the peasants fight for scraps outside the castle walls, remember? Why don't you go back inside and leave me to me crumbs?

It has nothing to do with thinking one has all the answers or anything like that. It is a matter of immersing oneself in the winds of the Infinite and allowing them to blow every cloud from the mind. Who needs to think they have all the answers when that occurs!

-

[David Quinn]

What's wrong with an infinite regress?

The alternative is something causa sui (self-creating) is it not?

The idea of an infinite regression of causes going back forever is also based on a faulty concept - in this instance, the concept of a thing. The regression springs out of the inherent limitations of the thing-concept. In reality, no such regression occurs.

Of course, there is no beginning either.

-

[Shahrazad]

You're the big, fat king in his court at a feast while the peasants fight for scraps outside the castle walls, remember? Why don't you go back inside and leave me to me crumbs?

Too funny broken, just too funny.

[Dan Rowden]

It wasn't funny, it was pathetic.

[brokenhead]

David, your mistake is the same as always. You cannot tell the difference between the laws of thought and the real world. This has all the signs of a mental defect. Anyone who can see the difference you accuse of harboring superstitious beliefs. Even more amusing is that you think disabusing such person of these "beliefs" is evidence of your magnaminity.

In reality, the human mind is the seat of rational thought. Its origins must lie outside the human mind itself. You say I have an agenda. The way I see it, I make a conscious effort not to have one. I trust my asessment of my motives over yours, I guess I'm just funny that way.

It has nothing to do with thinking one has all the answers or anything like that. It is a matter of immersing oneself in the winds of the Infinite and allowing them to blow every cloud from the mind. Who needs to think they have all the answers when that occurs!

Well, good for you. I don't know about the winds of the Infinite, but I do feel a blast of hot air.

[David Quinn]

In reality, the human mind is the seat of rational thought. Its origins must lie outside the human mind itself.

Spinning out that infinite regression yet again, I see. You're incorrigible! :)

As I say, the origins of logic come from existence itself. As soon as a thing exists, it is governed by logical realities as a matter of course. It's all very straightforward. There's no need to spin off into infinite regressions while chasing a transcendent god.

You say I have an agenda. The way I see it, I make a conscious effort not to have one. I trust my asessment of my motives over yours, I guess I'm just funny that way.

You're an alcoholic. You need a transcendent god to keep you on the straight and narrow, hence your lack of concern for how you present logic or how many infinite regressions you spin out. That is your agenda.

-

[rebecca702]

What's wrong with an infinite regress?

The alternative is something causa sui (self-creating) is it not?

The idea of an infinite regression of causes going back forever is also based on a faulty concept - in this instance, the concept of a thing. The regression springs out of the inherent limitations of the thing-concept. In reality, no such regression occurs.

Of course, there is no beginning either.

-

David, so would you say that if something exists, there is the illusion of regression. But nothing really exists, so therefore no regression? You are saying time doesn't exist.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

You are saying time doesn't exist.

To what extent does an illusion exist?

[rebecca702]

You are saying time doesn't exist.

To what extent does an illusion exist?

Exactly.

Nietzsche says time is infinite, but I think it's actually the same as saying it doesn't exist. Do you think so?