User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Experience
Transcendental Argument for God

Am I alone (or wrong) in looking at the TAG like this...

If - purely for the sake of argument - the entire TAG was logically sound and "proved" that God exists, then...

What about multiple gods? There is nothing in TAG that demands JUST ONE god, or leads us to favour ONE god over 935 gods. As someone convinced by TAG I would be likely to say: "I believe that the number of gods is greater than zero."

Also, as far as I can see, there is nothing in TAG that demands that all these gods still be "living" or in existence (am I right here?). Consequently, I might well say "I believe that the number of gods must be greater than zero OR have been greater than zero in the past."

Given the absense of evidence that the god or gods is currently active, I might conclude that they have possibly gone out of existance, or are at least are inactive for reasons unknown, or possibly were never active apart from their initial creation of the logical absolutes.

Now that's no reason to go to church is it? What I'm saying is even if TAG gets a theist SOMEWHERE, it gets him/her NOWHERE NEAR where he/she want to be.

As it happens, the TAG argument is flawed, so we don't have to worry about any of that.

PS> If Matt Slick says that something is either PHYSICAL or CONCEPTUL (and that that is a true dicothomy), then that would make God conceptual wouldn't it?

He was trying to make a new definition for the word conceptual that meant God. What were the gods active for?

Michael, UK said, "Am I alone (or wrong) in looking at the TAG like this... If -purely for the sake of argument - the entire TAG was logically sound and "proved" that God exists, then... What about multiple gods? There is nothing in TAG that demands JUST ONE god, or leads us to favour ONE god over 935 gods. As someone convinced by TAG I would be likely to say: "I believe that the number of gods is greater than zero."

Answer: The TAG'ers argument is about proving that humans could not have logic without god giving it to them. How many god/gods there are is not really the issue.

Michael, UK said, "Also, as far as I can see, there is nothing in TAG that demands that all these gods still be "living" or in existence (am I right here?). Consequently, I might well say "I believe that the number of gods must be greater than zero OR have been greater than zero in the past."

Answer: The Transcendental Argument for god actually has nothing to do with the number of god/gods. That's not to say that they wouldn't argue that there is only one god, but that is not what the Transcendental Argument for God is about. The TAG'ers proof of God's existence lies in the fact that God's existence is the necessary presupposition for all human knowledge.

Michael, UK said, "Given the absense of evidence that the god or gods is currently active, I might conclude that they have possibly gone out of existance, or are at least are inactive for reasons unknown, or possibly were never active apart from their initial creation of the logical absolutes."

Answer: Logical reasoning is not absolute. It was logical that it was impossible to go to the moon in the 1600 hundreds (a logical conclusion) given the science of that day. If something is logically impossible today, does that mean it is impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal. Logic is not a set of rules that govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals. It's obvious that whether something is logical or not depends on other factors. Therefore there are no logical absolutes. We know what is logical may not always be logical, therefore 'absolute logic' is not true. Logic changes as/and when new facts come to light. Absolute truths are whimsical but not useful. If a theory is sound it would be presented for testing. I do not know of a "God revelation" theory that has been submitted for testing. Unless something is submitted for testing it is no more than an unsupported claim pseudoscience. We should just give the same status to their claims and beliefs as we currently given to scientific theories, which have survived testing, I guess. In the case of this particular argument since it is not about whether godgods are active now it is about proving god exist because god gave man knowledge. They have proven nothing about god not even how many, but that is not want TAG is about. It's about the belief that there has to be a god or else man wouldn't know the difference in a rock and a mushroom. Even though men identified and named everything (in different languages).

Michael, UK said, "Now that's no reason to go to church is it? What I'm saying is even if TAG gets a theist SOMEWHERE, it gets him/her NOWHERE NEAR where he/she want to be. As it happens, the TAG argument is flawed, so we don't have to worry about any of that. PS> If MatSlick says that something is either PHYSICAL or CONCEPTUL (and that that is a true dicothomy), then that would make God conceptual wouldn't it?"

Answer: To identify anything, requires an image of it in the mind. If asked if you believe in the existence of a rock an image in the mind of a rock will appear. This image has come from experience or knowledge of a rock in some way.

When we perceive a rock (perception is a firsthand form of awareness) I do not need to construct a proof in order to validate it. It is on the basis of perception that I can recognize that an object is itself, that a rock is a rock, not a mushroom. From this instance of perception, I already have the material to form the principle: If a rock should exist, it must be a rock (facts that are merged into a whole) discovered firsthand in reality.

What modern man is learning (from birth) is what it has taken mankind to learn for millions of years. So, our intelligence is also based on the fact that we are learning what it has taken millions of years to develop in terms of knowledge. None of the TAG'ers, ID'ers or Creationists theories have been proven; all of the arguments to date against evolution have been proven wrong, and no new theory has been presented by anyone. I want a testable theory and supporting evidence before I become a believer. So, show me the theory.

The Transcendental Argument for god (TAG) claims that logic; the laws of nature and morality can't exist without god. God and the entire universe are a manifestation of the "god consciousness." I think they need to explain which came first god or consciousness. Without god, consciousness couldn't have existed, and consciousness couldn't exist without god!

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The audio and video from Steve Bratteng's July 13th lecture are now available.