The Transcendental Argument for God

[Dan Rowden]

Matt Slick does his thing.

Basically he makes the argument stated in the subject of this thread.

[guest_of_logic]

TheoreticalBullshit replies. It's a little slow to start with, but he makes a compelling argument (in the form of a question) towards the end; which I'll sum up as: if logic needs to be accounted for, then so do the properties of the Christian God - so, Matt, how do you account for your God?

He's very articulate and seems to be pretty switched on - it might be worth checking out some of his other videos.

[guest_of_logic]

I found another video rebutting the TAG argument, also by TheoreticalBullshit, and it is a lot better. In that thread of videos there's also one by a guy calling himself urbanelf, and he adds some other good points, specifically rebutting the idea that logic can be (or needs to be) accounted for by the existence of an eternal, perfectly consistent, omnipresent mind. I was planning on saying something to that effect myself, although I express it slightly differently: if the laws of logic are "accounted for" as the perfect thought processes of God's mind, then don't we need some means of getting them out of God's mind and into their expression in the rest of the universe? What exactly is that means?

Anyway, here's the alternate TAG thread for your enjoyment:

1. Christianity is logical. Atheism is illogical. by Zack (zkueker88). This video has the same purpose as Matt's original video - i.e. to explain and justify TAG - except that it's a little more energetic, and it's not quite as good.
2. Lord Logic... is TheoreticalBullshit's response to Zack. My main issue with this otherwise excellent monologue is that he describes a causeless, reasonless (in the sense of "not existing for any particular reason") entity (i.e. the God that Zack believes in) as (necessarily) "random", whereas I think that it's at least possible that something causeless and reasonless is not "random", but "necessary" - in the sense that there is no other way that it could be. I suppose that this would mean that "reasonless" doesn't apply to it after all, because there would after all be a reason - that reason being that it could be no other way.
3. RE: Lord Logic... is Zack's weak and wandering response to TheoreticalBullshit. He seems to largely miss the points that TB made. Safe to skip this one.
4. Tic Tac Toe pwns TAG is the urbanelf contribution to this thread, which, as I wrote above, adds some good points to those that TheoreticalBullshit already made.

[guest_of_logic]

My main issue with this otherwise excellent monologue is that he describes a causeless, reasonless (in the sense of "not existing for any particular reason") entity (i.e. the God that Zack believes in) as (necessarily) "random", whereas I think that it's at least possible that something causeless and reasonless is not "random", but "necessary" - in the sense that there is no other way that it could be. I suppose that this would mean that "reasonless" doesn't apply to it after all, because there would after all be a reason - that reason being that it could be no other way.

Well, whaddaya know - someone else was thinking along similar lines, and made a video about it, to which TheoreticalBullshit (TB) responded. After watching three of his videos, I'm now very impressed with the guy - not only does he appear to be smart and eloquent, but he also behaves like a gentleman.
1. Re: Lord Logic by Veritas48, questions TB's reasoning for concluding that God's properties are "random" rather than "necessary".
2. Random... Necessarily. is TB's response, which, as I understand it, boils down to: there is no such thing as unconditional necessity - things are necessary only in some relative sense, such as "an engine is a necessary component of a car if you want to drive that car". But God's properties, being that He is uncaused and absolute, must be unconditionally necessary, which doesn't make sense. He also provides a counter-example to the claim that God's properties couldn't have been any other way, noting that God might just as easily have possessed the property of perfect hatred rather than perfect love.

It's a good argument, but in the end - as he said in the first video of his that I posted a link to - no matter which perspective he comes from, he has to at some point accept that something fundamental "just is" - for no cause and no reason. This, to me, is the fundamental riddle of existence - that we have all of this structure and order for no cause and no reason. It seems to me that "unconditional necessity", or something along those lines, might be at least a clue towards the unravelling of this riddle.

[Dan Rowden]

I subscribed to his channel ages agoi and have seen all those vids. He's pretty good value as far as Youtubers go.

[guest_of_logic]

3. RE: Lord Logic... is Zack's weak and wandering response to TheoreticalBullshit. He seems to largely miss the points that TB made. Safe to skip this one.

I've just discovered that TB responded to this video. Wow. He nailed it. He called Zack on all of his unresponsiveness, equivocation, red herrings, strawmen, and the general poor quality of his video. It doesn't contain any new argument, so there's no need to watch it for any new theoretical knowledge, but it's great if you want to watch a skillful response to a non-argument:

Pulling Teeth...

[guest_of_logic]

I subscribed to his channel ages agoi and have seen all those vids. He's pretty good value as far as Youtubers go.

He's the best that I've seen so far overall, for calm, clear, fair reasoning. Other guys are good in more specific ways - e.g. Pat Condell is great for meaningful rants. I still haven't watched a lot of YouTube videos though, so I'm sure that there are many folks for me yet to discover.

[Ataraxia]

TheoreticalBullshit replies. It's a little slow to start with, but he makes a compelling argument (in the form of a question) towards the end; which I'll sum up as: if logic needs to be accounted for, then so do the properties of the Christian God - so, Matt, how do you account for your God?

He's very articulate and seems to be pretty switched on - it might be worth checking out some of his other videos.

As theoretical bullshit points out,the laws of thought aren't laws that govern the universe;but rather, are laws that are useful for humans interested in thinking clearly.

I'm not sure if theoreticalbullshit 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.

[Ataraxia]

[ Pat Condell is great for meaningful rants. .

Pat condell is great value.

Always gives me a laugh.

[Animus]

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.

[brokenhead]

I am sure this argument could be carried out purely symbolically without words at all. The one thing I can observe is that Both Matt and TB are necessarily at different stages in their personal lives. Every time I hear a young atheist, I just think: give him time.

[Dan Rowden]

Time to what? Lose his mind?

[Animus]

I love this one

NonStampCollector's Free-Will "God" Style Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9IvCpi ... 1C&index=1

[guest_of_logic]

Oh, hey, yeah, that one is good, and so are the others in that series - thanks for the link. I found another one of his videos which is great satire and funny too, and it makes a good point:

Hitler's Atheistic Regime

[Animus]

Oh, hey, yeah, that one is good, and so are the others in that series - thanks for the link. I found another one of his videos which is great satire and funny too, and it makes a good point:

Hitler's Atheistic Regime

Yea, lol. That one was awesome. A little satire can go a long way it seems.


This guy gets 40,000 hits for a rather weak argument against free-will. It's all in his presentation though, his attitude draws the views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SthbQdrx ... annel_page

[guest_of_logic]

Must... resist... the... urge... to... contribute... to... yet... another... public... free... will... debate...

...success!

I will make one specific comment on that video, though: I agree with your sentiments as to the video's merits, although I probably would have chosen the word "narrow" rather than "weak".

[guest_of_logic]

I'm not sure if theoreticalbullshit 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.

I'm not sure why you think that the argument begs the question or commits a bare assertion fallacy. As far as I understand it, the argument can be expressed - very simplistically - as follows:
1. If logical absolutes exist, then they must be accounted for.
2. The existence of God is the only way to account for logical absolutes[*].
3. Logical absolutes exist.
4. Therefore God exists.
[*] this is because of their transcendent, immaterial, conceptual nature: they must be qualities of a transcendent mind which we call "God".

If you agree that this represents the argument fairly (even if simplistically), then can you explain how it commits either of the fallacies that you mentioned? If you disagree that this represents the argument fairly, then can you provide your own representation, and then explain how that representation commits either of those fallacies?

By the way, I've not heard of the "bare assertion fallacy" before, so I looked it up. There seems to be some confusion as to what it entails exactly. Wikipedia's article seems to require that one of the premises of the argument asserts the truth of another. In some usages that I found with a Google search though, people use it to mean that one of the premises of an argument is simply asserted to be true, and these people don't seem to require that another premise asserts that premise to be true. I suspect that these usages are incorrect, but since I'm not an expert, I can't be sure. What do you understand this fallacy to mean?

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.

Which is almost what he said in the second video, except that he is happy to accept an "unaccounted for" God, but also expects TAG proponents by the same token to accept an "unaccounted for" logic: "And so you believe that the most natural and default state of existence [i.e. a conscious, feeling God] is this particular way for no possible reason for no possible cause, and you're forced to conclude that, because if God exists as opposed to not existing or has this trait as opposed to that trait for a reason or with a cause, it would imply the existence of another consciousness capable of causing things and having reasons for it."

[David Quinn]

I'm not sure if theoreticalbullshit 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.

I'm not sure why you think that the argument begs the question or commits a bare assertion fallacy. As far as I understand it, the argument can be expressed - very simplistically - as follows:
1. If logical absolutes exist, then they must be accounted for.
2. The existence of God is the only way to account for logical absolutes[*].
3. Logical absolutes exist.
4. Therefore God exists.
[*] this is because of their transcendent, immaterial, conceptual nature: they must be qualities of a transcendent mind which we call "God".

If you agree that this represents the argument fairly (even if simplistically), then can you explain how it commits either of the fallacies that you mentioned?

The fault lies in step 2. There is no logical necessity to pinpoint a God as being the only thing capable of accounting for logical absolutes.

In other words, the TAG argument essentially boils down to being an argument from wishful thinking. Can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

-

[guest_of_logic]

The fault lies in step 2. There is no logical necessity to pinpoint a God as being the only thing capable of accounting for logical absolutes.

Yes, I agree that it's an unsound argument for that reason (actually I think that premise 1 is also at the very least dubious, depending on what "accounted for" means), but I don't see that it commits either of the fallacies that Ataraxia mentioned.

[Ataraxia]

Yes, I agree that it's an unsound argument for that reason (actually I think that premise 1 is also at the very least dubious, depending on what "accounted for" means), but I don't see that it commits either of the fallacies that Ataraxia mentioned.

That is because like most theists you have already decided God exists.

Step 2 is begging the question because it is using the conclusion (God exists) as one of the premises.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... stion.html

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

[guest_of_logic]

Step 2 is begging the question because it is using the conclusion (God exists) as one of the premises.

No it's not. It's not asserting (the conclusion) that God does exist, it's asserting that he would have to exist to account for logical absolutes. It's a conditional statement. It would only be begging the question if it asserted or implied God's existence unconditionally.

[David Quinn]

Step 2 is begging the question because it is using the conclusion (God exists) as one of the premises.

No it's not. It's not asserting (the conclusion) that God does exist, it's asserting that he would have to exist to account for logical absolutes.

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.

-

[Ataraxia]

Laird,
Doesn't one have to establish something exists before one can postulate what 'it' can do?

At step 2 it is not even established whether God exists, let alone what this 'thing' we are speaking about it is capable of/responsible for.

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

[David Quinn]

Logical absolutes arise naturally from existence. As soon as a thing exists, logical realities automatically spring into being.

For example, that its form is what it is and not something else; that it isn't the Totality; that its boundaries aren't real, etc.

-

[guest_of_logic]

Step 2 is begging the question because it is using the conclusion (God exists) as one of the premises.

No it's not. It's not asserting (the conclusion) that God does exist, it's asserting that he would have to exist to account for logical absolutes.

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. 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).

Doesn't one have to establish something exists before one can postulate what 'it' can do?

Not at all. As far as I know, no one has established that fairies, leprechauns, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and unicorns exist, yet we have a fairly good idea of what each of those can do.

At step 2 it is not even established whether God exists,

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.

let alone what this 'thing' we are speaking about it is capable of/responsible for.

"God" as defined for the purposes of this argument (due to this premise in particular) seems to equate to something like "the transcendent mind responsible for creation, and in particular for the existence of logical absolutes within creation". Granted, the argument doesn't establish all of the capabilities/responsibilities of God typically ascribed to Him by Christians, and any Christian who maintains that it does is just plain wrong.

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

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.