The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence what is it?

[Butters]

In the thread TAG, one thing seems to be missing, a clear representation of the TAG argument. This is leading to confusion. I would ask that anyone interested in defending TAG, to please outline their position, in full, here.

Thanks!

[adam.naranjo]

The confusion exists in the common designation TAG.
Transcendental argument for Gods existance.
However, there is no SPECIFIC TAG.
Why? Because transcendnetal argumentation is a form of reasoning that involves itself with host of philosophical subjects...ethics, logic, epistemology, and others.

I call it transcendental argumentation, rather then, 'the' transcendnetal argument.

Transcendental reasoning deals with the WHOLE SHABANG!The whole of life, and worldview. So its impossible to norrow it down to one subject exclusively.

First let me say that this argumetation was not created by Christians, but by philosophers of the past. (And does still exist in philosophy, however its not very popular because of the depth of questions with which it deals)

The typical form of a transcendental argument is:
+ For X to be the case y would have to be the case because Y is a precondition of X.
+ X is the case and so Y is the case.

First notice the “because”. You can’t just say the Y is the precondition of X unless you first prove that it is…you do this with a reductio ad absurdum argument. We show that if you didn’t have Y then you couldn’t have X…We show this by reduction to absurdity of all other possibilities...

So you can say: “ok lets assume NOT/NO ‘Y’”
Then proceed to show that if you start with NOT ‘Y” then you couldn’t have X…that’s your reductio ad absurdum…IF you say there is no “Y” then you cant have “X” so “Y” is a precondition of “X” and therefore is the case.

Now take X and make it anything. Take Y and make it God.
More easily understood is to take X and make it some axiomatic thing upon which all reasoning is dependent in some way. You can show that if you assume 'not Y' (or not God) then you are reduced to skepticism and absurdity, and are left without the ability to know or have certainty of anything. This ofcourse is absurd. SO having reduced 'not Y' (or not God) to absurdity, we have shown that by impossibility of the contrary, GOD must exist. And infact all argumentation works because God gives the necessary preconditions for it in the first place. Athiesm and other worldview cannot, and therefore when they argue about anything they are assuming the Christian worldview as there basis for reasoning. (of course they would never admit this)

So in the end, only the Christian worldview can cohere with reality and those things (axioms) upon which we reason (X).
---

What's tuff about transcendental reasoning is that its so broad, and destroys other worldview is so many different ways, I could sit here and argue all night and destory everthing -- leaving only God and a coherent worldview based on him, called Christianity.
Being that I could just keep going and going....ill stop.

[adam.naranjo]

Let me say again that this 'typical' form of transcendental argumentation is not distinctly 'christian' in that Christians came up with. Kant was the first to really utalize it, and he observed that he could not come up with the final necessary preconditions for intelligbility. (in his case he was dealing with conceptual schemes and our ability to make the world intelligible)

Regarding TAG. transcendental argumentation for God's existence.
Transcendental argumentation of this nature and scope is irrefutable. To assume the non-existance of God would be to assume the necessary preconditions, that only He can give, in order to argue your point. So to argue against God is to prove Gods existance.
I know that this is somewhat deep, and I'm not taking the time to fully explain it. I will, if you like. However I hope i dont have to.

[Butters]

Thanks for the response Adam. So for starters he would have to prove that Y in is indeed a precondition to X. Am I correct?


and just a question out of curiosity, if this argument was not created by Christians, how can it prove the Christian God as opposed to any other God?

Thanks

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 02:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58129#post58129)
adam.naranjo:
Regarding TAG. transcendental argumentation for God's existence.
Transcendental argumentation of this nature and scope is irrefutable. To assume the non-existance of God would be to assume the necessary preconditions, that only He can give, in order to argue your point.

Did you just actually write that an attempt to present a counter argument to TAG automatically must presume preconditions that only God could create therefore winning the argument before it is even presented? :huh:

Not to mention that if the TAG is so irrefutable how come everyone doesn't believe in God?

What if the argument actually questioned the pre-existence of the conditions that TAG depends on? Because that's the tact I've been taking with 5Solas in the original thread, but have been unable to have a complete round of discussions with him on the matter so far.

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 03:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58193#post58193)
Butters:
and just a question out of curiosity, if this argument was not created by Christians, how can it prove the Christian God as opposed to any other God?


Excellent question! :thumb: But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. The argument itself is flawed, in my opinion. It makes certain assumptions that seem reasonable until you really examine what its assumptions really are.

[Butters]

Ten Dimensions,

Yes, the argument is seriously flawed. Just for the beginning, the conclusion reached is the same as the presupposition, circular argument. I had not heard of this TAG before, it seems TFS has a penchant for obscure theology, I had never heard of open theism either. The posts I made on the other thread were just off the cuff objections, but I was pleasntly suprised to see that My intuiation was mostly correct with regards to the flaws of this theory. I would like to argue it out with someone, to see what they bring to it, but I have mostly lost interest, TAG claims to use logic, but I disagree.

[adam.naranjo]

Today @ 08:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59000#post59000)
Butters:

Ten Dimensions,

Yes, the argument is seriously flawed. Just for the beginning, the conclusion reached is the same as the presupposition, circular argument.

No its not. As a matter of fact, the only atheist who has attempted a serious rebuttle of it (michael martin) never mentioned the serious problems you mention, WHY? Because if you know anything about modern philosophy you know that transcendental argumentation always has a circularity to it, and that is the whole point. IN transcendental reasoning one is asking what the necessary preconditions are for something else...particularly intelligibility. If something is the PRECONDITION for somthing else, then it must COME BEFORE it, hence, that thing (y) is found to truly be the beginning, and source for the ability to reason.

In other words, the whole point is that its circular. However, its the axiom that you cannot 'reason' without. Like laws of logic. You cannot argue for or against them without assuming them in your reasoning. See??? Its circular. You must assume the laws of logic in all your reasoning....The laws of Logic are considerd to be a transcendental. By the impossibility of the contrary, one must accept the laws of logic. (which an atheist worldview cannot account for) READ KANT to ge a better idea.

In all transcendnetal reasoning the point is to find out what one must assume in order to make the world intelligable. The atheist worldview does not offer the preconditions (things that must be assumed at the beginning) for intelligibility, nor can they even begin to justify knowledge given the assumptions in their own worldview.


----
Listen, I know it might be hard to get...I'm sure Kant had to really think about it to...If you want you can check out:

Transcendental Arguments and Scepticism: Answering the Question of Justification (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198250533/qid=1049814631/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/103-9077285-8368617?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
This may give you a good idea of TA. However it is not TAG. Its is just Transcendental argumentation. WHY? because TA is a philosophical endevor, and not just an argument for God's existance...HOWEVER, many philosophers have avoided the topic because Transcendental reasoning has essentially forced a God upon us, in the same way (however in a different method) that the big bang was said to 'force creation upon us' according to Fred Hoyle.


I will be open to continue to answer questions on this issue.
ps...i plan on writing a book on the subject as well...sshhh

[AtheistArchon]

- Martin did not specifically argue against the validity of TAG, that's true.

- He did, however, show that the same logic can be used to arrive at the opposite conclusion: that there is no god.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html

- If Martin's argument is correct, then what possible use is TAG?

[adam.naranjo]

The transcendnetal argument is ulike any other argument.
Because it is transcendental it cannot be argued against...it's irrefutable. For to argue against it is to continue to prove it because one must borrow form "y" in order to make intelligible, and justify there reasoning in the first place.

there is no escape from the TAG.
Dr. Greg bahnsens debate with Gordon Stein...."the Great Debate: Does God Exist?" Where Bahnsen (Ph.D in philosophy) rakes Stein over the coals using the Transcendnetal argument...You would think that if TAG had such obvious problems that Stein would bring them up?? (http://www.straitgate.com/gbgs.ram)

The fact is Bahnsen and Stein continued to correspond for 6 months after this debate. After 6 months stein finally figured out what TAG was, and he had NO rebuttle to it...he had nothing to say....there is nothing to say....its irrefutable.


Adam.Naranjo

[Pilgrim]

It is most interesting that when someone finds a bit of philosophy or theology they have previously been unaware of they lable it as obscure.

Certainly Immanuel Kant is not obscure. And I suppose everyone knows who Henry David Thoreau was? Prehaps the problem is that we are not always as well read or informed as we would like to believe?

And open theism, though a newer addition to theological discussions, is not obscure as it takes its cue from Process Theology. Something that is new is not by definition obscure.

[AtheistArchon]

The fact is Bahnsen and Stein continued to correspond for 6 months after this debate. After 6 months stein finally figured out what TAG was, and he had NO rebuttle to it...he had nothing to say....there is nothing to say....its irrefutable.

- But we're still avoiding Martin. :smile:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/transcendental.html

[adam.naranjo]

Atheist...

that was my point. Instead of arguing against an invalid point within the transcendental argument (because he cant) Martin created TANG... which is based on faulty understanding of the Biblical teaching about God and reasoning etc.. (yes I've read it)

Avoiding martin??? HAHAHA.... Apearently martin hasn't told you

I'm sure you've seen the dabate. url ->between Frame and Martin (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/index.shtml)


I would be glad to send you Greg Bahnsen's letures given at the debate to which Martin did not show up at....you know about martin duckin' out of that debate right?


Also, Bahnsen had a great series called, "Michael Martin under the microscope", where he destroys Martins book..."philosophical justificaiton...you know the one.

...But you wouldnt be interested in listen to a Christian destroy the books you build your faith on...

Sorry i couldnt help it... all in fun...:lol:
Adam.naranjo

[AtheistArchon]

that was my point. Instead of arguing against an invalid point within the transcendental argument (because he cant) Martin created TANG... which is based on faulty understanding of the Biblical teaching about God and reasoning etc.. (yes I've read it)

- It's not faulty just because you say it is. What's the misconception?

I would be glad to send you Greg Bahnsen's letures given at the debate to which Martin did not show up at....you know about martin duckin' out of that debate right?


Also, Bahnsen had a great series called, "Michael Martin under the microscope", where he destroys Martins book..."philosophical justificaiton...you know the one.

...But you wouldnt be interested in listen to a Christian destroy the books you build your faith on...

Sorry i couldnt help it... all in fun...:lol:

- I meant you and I, not Martin and Bahnsen.

- As far as I can tell, Martin has defeated TAG pretty soundly. In fact, in this particular link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/induction.html

- ... Martin addresses nearly every argument you've made regarding induction and TAG. I don't think you've gotten around to logic or morality yet (the other two parts of TAG), but we can address them here if you like.

- And remember, simply saying the argument is bunk doesn't mean it IS bunk. :wink:

[Butters]

Although I continued to hear that this argument cannot be refuted, I have not been shown how that is. It seems to me that it boils down to this. In a way logic is circular, and is based on these three axioms.


The Law of Non-Contradiction.
The Law of Causality
The basic reliability of sense experience.

if you merely assert that God exists, then you are guilty of fideism. You say that your basis is the revealed word of God from the Scripture, I say prove it. You cannot say it is proven because God exists because the Scriptures say so. If you do this you're no longer using a logical argument, and you can abandon that claim.

although Kant did call into question the presuppositions of logic he could not overcome the very name that makes logic usable, namely warrant. The axioms above are used because they work. Where do they come from? I don't know. Why these rules for this universe? I don't know. But, they do work, and while they may not ever show us the truth, they are the only reliable tool that we have to show us what is false.

I would like to discuss this further, but we will have to move beyond mere assertions. If you claim that I can not begin to argue against TAG, show me why not. I believe the simple answer above suffices.


As to this and open theism being obscure, this is not my fault. The vast majority of Christians totally reject open theism, and so far none that I have talked to personally has even heard of TAG.and it is my understanding that few support it.

[adam.naranjo]

I do not mind discussing the issues. However, I need to know that you have at least read Martins debate with frame. As far as I am concerned, that would be (at the very least) a prerequisite. And incase you did not already know, the article you link to was written before that debate. Before a couple of important debates actually. Including Michael butler, and (if I remember right) Douglas Jones. The point is: you need to catch up. Michael martin has consistently been rebutted. Michael Martin's attempts are not faulty because I say so (although I could explain it). His attempts have been shown to be faulty in a few rebuts. The biggest problem has been Michael Martins misconceptions about the argument itself, and about the true God. (for example, he fails to see what should be obvious regarding transcendental arguments: that they argue by the impossibility of the contrary. This is why a transcendental argument does, infact, prove something. It does not only show inconsistence with other worldviews or claims, but, in showing those inconsistencies, it makes evident what must be assumed in order to give preconditions for intelligibility. In addition, what must be assume is a being with the characteristics that the Christian God has. And on top of that, that those not assuming a Biblical Christian worldview do not have the preconditions upon which they can even participate in debate.) Michael Martin has always had a hard time understanding TAG, and the theological issues involved. I suggest you catch up, and then we can talk.
On the other hand, If I decide I have time to, I might layout a short history of the use of transcendental argumentation and its critics. That would make a good paper. mmm..

However, right now I am working on a worldviews class curriculum, a paper on various ways to utilize transcendental arguments against naturalism, and some other things. Actually, I was planning to make this one of my last days on this forum in the next week or so. However, some other recent circumstances might give me more time...we will see what happens.

Adam.naranjo


Adam.naranjo

[AtheistArchon]

- In that case, since you seem to have a very definitive idea of what TAG is (and does), perhaps you can direct me to a detailed version of the logical argument that makes TAG up. In other words, a genuine logical argument that you agree with and stand behind, and not a summation with a detailed conclusion.

Michael Martin has always had a hard time understanding TAG, and the theological issues involved. I suggest you catch up, and then we can talk.

- You've hand-waved yet again. Give me something concrete please, instead of saying "read, read read!" or "you obviously don't know what you're talking about" and then walking away.

- I understand if time is an issue... it certainly is for me as well. If your busy schedule precludes getting into the meat of the argument, then perhaps we can simply agree to disagree.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 12:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59180#post59180)
adam.naranjo:
I'm sure you've seen the dabate. url ->between Frame and Martin (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/index.shtml)


So I went to that link and read through the first few exchanges, but I admit I don't have time to read it all through just now. But I did read enough to point out one thing that I think would have helped the debate it bit.

It seems as though TAG is saying that God is logic, reason, and morals. Would that be a correct statement? Frame and Martin seemed to circle that, but as far as I could tell no one ever really said that the argument is saying that logic is God.

Now, before I go further I'm wondering if I'm off on some weird tangent or not.

[PlumpDJ]

Hello Adam,

One question I have is how does TAG get you to a Christian worldview? That is how does TAG get you to a cosmology that has a Trinitarian God?

[Valmoon]

Posted by adam.naranjo:

"I would be glad to send you Greg Bahnsen's letures given at the debate to which Martin did not show up at....you know about martin duckin' out of that debate right?"

Did you read the link Atheist Archon posted previously to this remark adam? Martin specifically mentions that this debate did not take place because he would not allow the debate to be taped and sold to a Christian organization. Perhaps instead of "ducking" you can just say exactly what happened the next time.

[Butters]

Posted by adam.naranjo:

"I would be glad to send you Greg Bahnsen's letures given at the debate to which Martin did not show up at....you know about martin duckin' out of that debate right?"

Did you read the link Atheist Archon posted previously to this remark adam? Martin specifically mentions that this debate did not take place because he would not allow the debate to be taped and sold to a Christian organization. Perhaps instead of "ducking" you can just say exactly what happened the next time."


I would rather see you present your argument of TAG, neither Bahnsen or Martin are here to present this idea, or to defend their positions.

[adam.naranjo]

Response to all those who have asked me questions and made stupid accusations

Like I said, I've been busy. But I do have a couple of minutes to answer a few questions, and stupid accusations.


Atheist Archon
Ok, first of all let me deal with this wierd idea about qualificaitons from AtheistArchon. The idea that I must qualify EVERY SINGlE thing I say. Atheist Archon, If i wanted to I could go through all your posts and find statments to which you offered no qualification. Just like you, I will not offer qualifications for everything I say. Obviously Martin's ability to discuss TAG will be, in my opinion, substandard for a philosopher. If I wanted to I could go through his work and show how he doesn't even rank next to other modern philosophers who deal with transcendental arguments. I could also show that part of his problem is his misundertanding of Christian theology. However, I'm not going to do this...this would end up making a decent sized research paper. Perhaps, at some point, when I have more time, I will make mention of some of his serious problems. (the ones I havn't already mentioned)

Another issue regarding transcendental argumentation. Did I not already explain the argument? Have I not done it multiple times on this forum? Let me explain this again. There is not "TAG", in other words, there is not specific [one] transcendental argumnet. Rather, there is what is called, transcendental argumentation, or transcendental arguments. If X is the case then Y is the case because Y is the precondition of X due to the impossibility of the contrary. This probably doesn't help, because you have to understand transcendental reasoning first

Lastly, "you obviously don't know what your talking about"..."read, read, read"


Ten Dimensions

So I went to that link and read through the first few exchanges, but I admit I don't have time to read it all through just now. But I did read enough to point out one thing that I think would have helped the debate it bit.

It seems as though TAG is saying that God is logic, reason, and morals. Would that be a correct statement? Frame and Martin seemed to circle that, but as far as I could tell no one ever really said that the argument is saying that logic is God.

God is NOT logic, reason, or morality. And transcendental arguments for the necessity of the Biblical God do NOT say such a thing. Rather, that Logic, flows from God's nature, its a representation of how God thinks -- The thinking that he has given, to a lesser extent, to us, and that is inherent in all of creation. (Again, this is undestood in view of the creator creature distinction -- we can talk about this later, but its intregal)
Morality is our representation of parts Gods nature -- as well as reason.
Furthermore, frame shows rather succinct that frames understanding and accusation in this area is due to his ignorance.
Furthermore, the argument could not possibly say that God is logic, because transcendental argumenation would be asking what the preconditions for logic are. Logic cannot be the preconditions for logic. (Thats the atheists answer so to speak)

You sound like you are actually interested in the argument...is that right? If so, please allow me to direct you to others who have written on it. -- or, when I have more time, I'll go into more detail. Transcendental reasoning is deeeeep, and tough for some -- which I understand.

PlumpDJ
"One question I have is how does TAG get you to a Christian worldview? That is how does TAG get you to a cosmology that has a Trinitarian God?"

The Reformed view of the God of the Bible offers the preconditions for intelligibility in every way. God's attributes fit, exactly, what is needed in order to make sense out of our experience, whereas NO OTHER CAN. Or simply, by the impossibility of the cotrary. The trinity is what gives us the preconditions for the intelligibility of relation, communication, indentity...

Butters
"Martin specifically mentions that this debate did not take place because he would not allow the debate to be taped and sold to a Christian organization. "

Actually Bahnsen mentioned this quite honestly in his lecture. It's still interesting though. I find it interesting that Michael martin, who wants to debate the subject with Christians, would be afraid that Christians would purchase the tapes...Besides, Martin could have sold them as well. After listening to martin on transcendental arguments, I have to assume that he is 'duckin' because he just can't handle it. Atheist's who debated Bahnsen admitted afterword that they were just not ready for it...As a matter of fact, Stein admitted it in the middle of his debate.


Finally, read, read, read

[PlumpDJ]

Hello Adam,

You write..

The Reformed view of the God of the Bible offers the preconditions for intelligibility in every way. God's attributes fit, exactly, what is needed in order to make sense out of our experience, whereas NO OTHER CAN. Or simply, by the impossibility of the cotrary. The trinity is what gives us the preconditions for the intelligibility of relation, communication, indentity...

If for arguments sake I were a Jew or a 'philosophical theist' who denied or was agnostic on the nature of God with respect to his Trinitarian nature then how would TAG demonstrate that a unitarian God with a single nature could not account for reason and so forth.

I'd really love to see the logic within TAG that gets you from a creator God (who may or may not be Trinitarian) to a Trinitarian God with a father, a Son and a Holy spirit?

[Butters]

Yea, well good luck Plump DJ, cause all you're going to get around here is more hand waving.

[adam.naranjo]

Waving my hand -- for butters.

As I mentioned before, twice, I don't have time for such detail.
However, you miss the point of a transcendental argument which by nature deals with worldview considerations and sets of beliefs, and proves things by the impossibility of the contrary. I would really have to open up transcendental argumentation and reasoning with you in order to get into certain proofs of the Trinity by transcendental reasoning. I do believe that that in order to have intelligibilty of relationships you must half to have a relational God. This is proved by the impossibility of the contrarty. So as you can see, there are two answers. Without the Christian worldview, you cannot account for the preconditions for intelligibility, part of the Christian worldview is the Trinitarian view of God. (there is more to this, I know. And I can hear the questions in your head...but I'm waving my hand on this, haha)
Secondly, without a relational Godhead, which only the jewish and Christian worldviews can offer, one is without the preconditions for the intelligibilty of relationship. (There is also much more to this, however, I'm waving my hand for butters)

The problem is, I can ask butters, "What are the preconditions for intelligibility in your worldview", and he will have to wave his hand, because he can't offer any.

Read Cornelius Van Til for more on the necessity of the Trinity...
If you dare read a Christian philosopher/theologian.

Adam. :hi:

[Butters]

Adam, although it seems to me that we could have covered alot of ground in the time it took for you to refer me elsewhere or to make vauge statements, if you do not have the time to pursue this, please don't feel obligated to.

[PlumpDJ]

Well,

There's no point laying the TAG on philosophical noobs who don't know enough about the issues to respond. :)

As far as the 'basic TAG' goes then I think it's a good argument. In fact philosopher Richard Taylor seemed to lay down a somewhat similar argument in his book "Metaphysics" in his chapter on God. Claiming it had along with the other argument presented philosophic worth. (The other argument being the 'ever so famous, Russell vs Copleston argument from sufficant explanation..')

Getting us to a Trinitarian God is something else completely and I'd really need to see that argument unfold to accept that.

[Satori]

Wow, I think it's truly sad the lengths you guys will go to to delude yourself with this half-baked and foolish rhetoric. But considering the cold fact that your supposed "immortal souls" are at steak in this, based on your ability/inability to swallow whatever mindless dogma is fashionable in the society you were born into, then I don't blame you for it in the least. I simply feel sorry for you and wish I could help you think outside the self-important box you have been placed in, but I'm sure that I can't, your deep-rooted fears and desires ensure that opening your minds to reality as it presents itself is not a viable option for you . After all, if I felt obligated to delude myself I would probably do the same as you are, that is, trying to convince myself and others of the "value" of such a completely absurd and completely unsubstantiated viewpoint out of delusional desparation and a quest to "have faith".

Fortuantely for me, I have the option of simply being honest with myself, and I don't have any reasons (ie. selfish desire for salvation, irrational fear of "hell") to delude myself with any of the world's innane dogmas, so unlike most of you here, I am free to maintain and open mind and admit to the limitations of my understanding as it pertains to the nature and origins of reality.

I hope I've jogged a few narrow minds out there, but I doubt it, and if I had, could any of you even admit it to yourselves? Wake up.

in compassion, absolute honesty, and uncompromised reason,

Satori

[Someone7]

Presuppositionalists are so incredibly funny. They hold to a position that they can't even formulate an argument for. It's just one assertion after the other, and presuppositionalists like adam.naranjo just keep spouting their crap over and over again, until the opposition finally gives up. Anyone who has had experience with other presuppers knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Michael Martin has thoroughly and utterly destroyed presuppositionalist arguments, mainly just by pointing out that they haven't even made an argument. When they do make arguments, they have nothing to do with proving Christianity, but are merely arguments promoting epistemological nihilism. They abandon all reason and pretend their nonsense somehow puts it back together again.

Have fun arguing with these delusional lunatics, and lets all hope their political dreams never come true. Reconstructionism is quite a scary thing.

[TheFiveSolas]

someone7,

I seem to remember Dr. Martin backing out of his debate with Dr. Greg Bahnsen at the last minute and giving several lame excuses. Michael Butler also ate him for lunch in their short exchange on the subject.

[djdavo]

i just skimmed the article,but have listened to debates and haven't heard an atheist give a good response yet. if they would have i probably would have remembered it.

martin seems to be saying that since other "interpretations of science, logic, and ethics are possible." that the argument for God is disproved.

he doesn't give a good example: just says, "Logic conceived in metaphysical terms may indeed be problematic and be better thought of in different terms. Perhaps, for example, the principles of logic should be considered as instruments. However, so construed they need not be arbitrary since they are adopted for certain purposes"


OK...that's a pretty poor argument, don't you think? PERHAPS aliens planted microchips in our head that gave us the laws of logic in our heads...but perhaps not :smile:

[djdavo]

Yesterday @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95543#post95543)
Satori:

Fortuantely for me, I have the option of simply being honest with myself, ...., so unlike most of you here, I am free to maintain and open mind and admit to the limitations of my understanding as it pertains to the nature and origins of reality.

I hope I've jogged a few narrow minds out there, but I doubt it,


not so honest as to see the fact that the bible is the most historically proved book in the history of mankind?
you have a strange definition of 'open mind'. dont you mean "open mind as long as you don't tell me about any kind of religious garbage?"
it's precisely because you and i have limitations to our minds that we need God....since he knows a whole lot more than us.




if you want to have an open mind, then have one. let's honestly discuss the topic.
not to sound too harsh, why would anyone listen to the self righteous,self important, "i know more than you" tone you have?(that same tone you accuse "all christians" of having)




and just so i can comment on topic: how can you have universal morality and universal logic ( that's not based on culture or conventions) if there isn't a source for that universal morality and logic? dumb luck?

[dawnghost]

Today @ 04:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95759#post95759)
djdavo:
and just so i can comment on topic: how can you have universal morality and universal logic ( that's not based on culture or conventions) if there isn't a source for that universal morality and logic? dumb luck?

if he comes up with "common sense", this will be a heck of a deja vu, let me tell you.
...as much as a big fat fallacy that is.

Yesterday @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95543#post95543)
Satori:
But considering the cold fact that your supposed "immortal souls" are at steak in this (...)

as someone once stated to YOU, some time ago:

pass the filet mignon!

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/images/smilies/lol.gif

[Socrates]

Someone7:Presuppositionalists are so incredibly funny. They hold to a position that they can't even formulate an argument for. Rubbish. This overlooks the fact that ALL philosophical systems begin with axioms, which by definition are accepted as true without proof.

And if you want to argue from authority by claiming that the buffoon Michael Martin has refuted presuppositionalism, then I'll point out that his book has been thoroughly obliterated at www.tektonics.org/TK-m.html#martin

[Someone7]

I seem to remember Dr. Martin backing out of his debate with Dr. Greg Bahnsen at the last minute and giving several lame excuses.

His 'lame' excuse was that he didn't want to support Bahnsen's delusions financially. Besides, public debates are basically worthless spectacles anyway.

Michael Butler also ate him for lunch in their short exchange on the subject.

LOL! Butler was trashed like the fool that he is.

My, Socrates and 5S defending presuppositionalism? One would think this nonsense wouldn't jive even with Fundamentalist Christians.

Here’s a philosophical system for you Socrates: Everything I say is right. All logic stems from me, so by even trying to disagree with me, you're proving me right. I don't need to argue for this, because it is self-evidently true, and all other belief-systems indirectly borrow the axiom that I am always right.

But anyway…

Holding says this about Martin:

This chapter emerges as further proof that when it comes to the historical questions related to Christianity, those with irrelevant credentials like Martin need to take their business elsewhere.

This coming from a man with a degree in, what was it, Library Science? Don't make me laugh.

[TheFiveSolas]

[b]someone7:[/]b
His 'lame' excuse was that he didn't want to support Bahnsen's delusions financially.


Yes, that was a lame excuse since after he attempted it the church sponsoring the debate agreed that they would not charge for anyone wanting the tapes (i.e., no support would go to Dr. Bahnsen, or anyone else for that matter).

I can come to no other conclusion than Dr. Martin chickened out.

[geebob]

Satori, I have again taken the liberty to edit your post.

That post could have been plopped down in just about any thread dealing with arguements for the existence of God. There wasn't a real grappling with the issues and it was mostly condescending and inflammatory material. In my lazyness, I'll refer you to the rule I posted for you in the kalam cosmological arguement thread.

[Socrates]

Someone7:Here’s a philosophical system for you Socrates: Everything I say is right. All logic stems from me, so by even trying to disagree with me, you're proving me right. I don't need to argue for this, because it is self-evidently true, and all other belief-systems indirectly borrow the axiom that I am always right.Here's the difference -- such solipsism is both internally inconsistent and fails to provide a coherent argument for reality. The propositions of Scripture ARE internally consistent as is shown by proper historical-grammatical hermeneutics and make good sense of reality.

[Someone7]

Here's the difference -- such solipsism is both internally inconsistent and fails to provide a coherent argument for reality. The propositions of Scripture ARE internally consistent as is shown by proper historical-grammatical hermeneutics and make good sense of reality.

Actually, no. I'm always right, this is a self-evident truth that doesn't need to be demonstrated. In fact, just by trying to form a coherent argument against Someone7ism, you're confirming the truth of Someone7ism. All the statements I make are consistent with each other and make perfect sense of reality, while your religion doesn't. In fact, to even appear to make sense, Christianity borrows the axiom that I am always right.

[TheFiveSolas]

Someone7,

:rofl: Merely positing that your "worldview" is always right, is not the same type of argument as the transcendental one. The transcendental argument deals with the preconditions of rationality, something that your "attempt" isn't doing. In other words, in the words of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, "you can't choose presuppositions like you choose hats." Merely positing an axiom, "I am always right", doesn't constitute proving that such an axiom is a necessary precondition.

[Someone7]

Merely positing that your "worldview" is always right, is not the same type of argument as the transcendental one. The transcendental argument deals with the preconditions of rationality, something that your "attempt" isn't doing. In other words, in the words of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, "you can't choose presuppositions like you choose hats." Merely positing an axiom, "I am always right", doesn't constitute proving that such an axiom is a necessary precondition.

Accepting that I am always right is the precondition for rationality. Nothing at all makes sense unless one assumes I am always right. It is self-evidently true that I am always right, and I don't need to defend this with a logical argument, as accepting that I am always right is a precondition for logical argumentation.

[TheFiveSolas]

Someone7,

Its quite revealing that you are unwilling (unable?) to debate this intellectually.

In addition, your straw man version of the Transcendental Argument is duly noted as such.

[Someone7]

I've done my fair share of debating this nonsense on other forums, and this is what it always comes down to.

So you might as well accept that I'm always right, since I've done such a great job of proving it.

[TheFiveSolas]

Someone7,

I would suggest that you read the Thread "The Transcendental Argument for God" (note: its a thread different from this one). You will notice that your caricature doesn't compare with how TAG has been explicated here.

[Someone7]

Actually, I've seen TAG presented much better in the past, and its still the same nonsense.

[TheFiveSolas]

Someone7,

I highly doubt that considering how poorly you portrayed it here.

[Someone7]

I don't care what you doubt. There are other people on the net who buy this nonsense like you do, who can present it much better than you can. A guy named Jim Mitchell comes to mind. He was a poster at the Internet Infidels forum awhile back, but hasn't posted there in over a year. Much better manners than you too.

All I need to 'portray' it properly is to actively argue for epistemological nihilism, and then to pretend that my position magically saves knowledge and reason. The position would then be indistinguishable from Christian presuppositionalism. In fact, I could easily take one of your posts and just switch a few words around, and it would be a great argument for Someone7ism.

[TheFiveSolas]

Someone7,

You've already attempted that, but as anyone can see, it was nothing more than an argument from assertion.

With regards to people being able to present TAG better than I can I'll simply admit that you are right. However, how is that relevant to anything I've said? I've never presented myself as the best defender of TAG and for you to imply otherwise is hysterical. :teeth:

If you wish to defend epistemological nihilism go right ahead, it is a self-refuting position. One that reduces itself to absurdity.

[Someone7]

You've already attempted that, but as anyone can see, it was nothing more than an argument from assertion.

LOL! I'm glad you see that.

With regards to people being able to present TAG better than I can I'll simply admit that you are right. However, how is that relevant to anything I've said? I've never presented myself as the best defender of TAG and for you to imply otherwise is hysterical.

You said you doubted that I've seen the argument presented much better, so I gave a specific example of someone who presents TAG better. That's how its relevant. For you to say that I thought you implied you were the best defender of TAG is hysterical.

If you wish to defend epistemological nihilism go right ahead, it is a self-refuting position. One that reduces itself to absurdity.

LOL! I'm glad you see that. Does this mean you're not a presuppositionalist anymore?

[mickiel]

Creation demands creator, there can be no other percise formula.
Everything composed of matter has a beginning, carbon dateing proves that. The rate of decay can be cataloged, multiply its rate, you have the future of its ending, reverse the mathmatics, you have its beginning. Their is no big bang theory, without first the existance of matter.

Evolution is proof of its own error. Nothing that begins on its own, can continue on its own, or the universe would be heading toward more life,instead of decay.