|
General Random thoughts and ideas. "General" does not mean random drivel, nonsense or inane silliness. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Hey Heroscapers,
Been a while! I probably owe an explanation as to my long absence, but I'm not going to give one. I come to you today with a question, but after the question has been answered, I would very much like to see this grow into a discussion of sorts, not necessarily bound to the Transcendental Argument of the Existence of God (which in an effort to save time, is more often referred to as 'TAG'). Before I pose to you my question, I will illustrate the argument as it was first presented to me: 1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality. 2. People know things by process of reason and moral intuitions. 3. Therefor, God exists. So barring the number of objections raised in opposition to the syllogism, my question is merely in regards to the first premise, and in my research on the subject I have failed to find an objection similar to the one my question would pose. And I fully admit it may be attributed to the fact that there actually is no such objection as I shall soon present, and that it is possible it is only a misconception of the workings of logic on my part. So without further ado, I present my question. The purpose of TAG is to illustrate that there is in fact a deity, or number of deities, who have set a moral standard and created the laws of logic that are arbitrary and contingent on the existence of said deity(ies). Since the conclusion consists of "Therefor, God exists," isn't the the use of god and the presupposition that he is a necessary being in the first premise invalid? That is to say, doesn't using the conclusion to validate a premise belie the syllogism? Isn't presupposing god exists in order to prove god exists a fallacy? Now clearly, there are a number of objections one could bring to bear against TAG, but for the moment I would be most pleased if anyone was willing to help me through the logistics of my thought process here. Thanks! ~JS Last edited by Joseph Sweeney; June 27th, 2017 at 10:46 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Good luck on this one buddy. I cant help you here but I hear you. In simpler terms. (Which I prefer) either theres a god or there isnt one. I prefer to think theres one just so I dont have to believe Im a distant relative to a monkey. If I am a distant relative to a monkey, it really wont change my current situation in life so I guess I really dont care anyway. I do still try to be a decent human being though. Thats on me. If I go to a "hell" for not being good enough, that is something I can live with. Its all how you look at it I guess. If you come across someone that has all the answers they are probably after some kind of gain or just have told themselves enough times that that is how it is or has to be. Really who could know absolutely for sure. I hope this does not offend anyone it is just my small perspective on an issue that is larger than us all. I think if someone believes in something that gives them purpose or a sense of morality or purpose it is not a bad thing. Im just not sure of it myself. Carry on.
Check out my ebay where you can find my custom dice trays and dicetowers: https://www.ebay.com/usr/captainamazing_jerdo |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Hi Joseph, good to have you (and questions like this) back.
There's no /logical/ fallacy as far as I can tell. Perhaps if you rewrite it as it's clearer? Of course, #1 is utter bunk either way, but I don't think that's your issue at the moment? |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
I'm always disappointed for arguments for a god.
It always strikes me as a poor attempt at explaining something wondrous (for the believer), like they need some justification or something. Part of the nature of Faith seems to be stepping beyond the logical (like in Indiana Jones). Or doing rational math with irrational numbers - that is not how the system works. Logic is very much a human construct based on the universe we live in. For most people God Transcends our universe thus is not constricted by our logic any more than a 4 dimensional creature would be trapped in a 3 dimensional box. Additionally the premises of your argument are very dubious, but The logic isn't: 1. Light is required to see Red and Blue objects 2. I can see red and blue objects 3. Therefore there is light in this room. I used a property of light (in your case the universe) to prove that there is light in my room. This is perfectly acceptable, and is so intuitive that we make these conclusions all the time. However if there was some other process for seeing Red and Blue - say being triggered by smells, then the whole argument breaks down (like the way your argument breaks down when Atheists are moral, or evolutional biology explains altruism.) Or a better example: 1. Immorality implies god is dead. 2. There is immorality in the world. 3. God is dead in this world. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Quote:
Have faith, don't have faith, it's up to you. But you won't get there by logic, and (as Wriggz seemed to be saying), it would be kind of sad if you could. Because then what is your faith worth? Also, don't tell people that they need to have religion to be moral. That is wrong, as a fact, and is a non-starter for any serious conversation about morality (edit: or about religion). Edit: A shorter answer to your ultimate question would be "no, it is not a fallacy, but your argument does take a faulty premise, and therefore it collapses." |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Just as a quick clarification -- the argument is not mine per se. It is true that I am presenting it, but I feel I am doing so critically and I don't put any stock in it being a logical assertion.
Just throwing it out there in case anyone thought otherwise. ~JS |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Too many fancy words for this dumb painter.
I think people into religion do so on faith and if they try to use logic to explain it, then it may not work out too well. Hand of fate is moving and the finger points to you ...Iron Maiden - The Wicker Man TUTORIAL FOR RE-BASING FIGURES 3hrs 43mins 32secs = 1242nd of 8808 overall - 1988 Honolulu Marathon |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
The best argument for God is life.
A cloud can change its semblance, yet retain its will With the intimacy of destruction, One knows what it is to be alive The empty sky holds no reflection, for sorrow - Eslo Rudkey |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
We're headed towards presuppositional apologetics! Oh noes!
ollie and wriggz already have your question covered pretty well, demonstrating that a valid argument can be made using that type of structure. I'd just add, tangential to your question, that you have to remember that a valid argument isn't a sound argument if it isn't based on true premises. Your reluctance to accept the validity of the argument is probably because your baloney detector has gone off and you know right away the argument isn't sound. Quote:
I'm not sure I follow, at least precisely. Do you mean that life exists is (informally) the best "argument" for god or do you mean something else? There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. --MLK |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Quote:
But your rewording of the syllogism has made it easier to follow and I now understand. So thank you for that! Quote:
To your point about atheists having morals breaking down the argument, well I'm not necessarily sure that's entirely true. See, the argument isn't that only those who believe in god have morals, rather that god is the arbiter of morality, and has installed it into the hearts of individuals, including atheist Now the claim is still entirely unfounded, but I just don't think pointing out that atheist have morals serves to debunk the argument. And I agree that since evolutionary biology can account for morality it is intellectually dishonest to assume it was a god without sufficient evidence to support that claim. The argument that god created morality and logic, however, is readily met with the Euthyphro Dilemma, I should think. That is to say, if god created morals and logic outside himself, is he necessarily bound to them? Are his hands tied in deciding logic (e.g. when he created the universe must 2+2=4, or was he able to make 2+2=9)? Either god is bound by logic, and thus it is not arbitrary, or he is not. If one should answer he is not bound by logic, the individual would be forced to answer, "can god create a rock too heavy for himself to lift?" A vast majority of believers will assert he cannot because that would be illogical. But this assertion would in fact demonstrate god is bound by the laws of logic and so he is not the author or arbiter of them, logic is in fact not arbitrary, and so on. So I do find the argument a let down, as you said. I'm not sure I concur. I feel life I no more indicative of the existence of a god than death is indicative of its non-existence. ~JS EDIT: When I write, "when god created the universe," I am not asserting he did, but for the sake of the hypothetical am assuming it to be true. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Without life none of this is possible.
There is no morality, no discussion, perhaps there is nothing. A quantum particle can exist simultaneously in two states and does not 'settle' on one until observed. So what is the universe if there is no life to observe it? Science can explain many things, however the biggest question of all, the origin of life, escapes our limits of comprehension. Of course if we are all just a computer simulation then this is all fairly mute. For the record I question the existence of one all powerful being but I also would not rule it out (and I would hope that is the way this being would want it). Life is simply the best hill to stand on as there is nothing that can dispute its supernatural nature. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Undercosted 4th Mass Argument: Supply and Demand Analogy | mccombju | HeroScape General Discussion | 15 | June 17th, 2009 11:09 PM |
Help me, my friend and I are having an argument. | Jedi Master Corazz | Official Rules & FAQ's | 23 | September 6th, 2007 05:26 PM |
An a argument thread about n00b rights. | Ullar rocks 4553 | Scapers Online | 97 | August 4th, 2007 12:35 AM |
Marrow argument | Roman_Warlord | HeroScape General Discussion | 21 | August 3rd, 2007 08:27 PM |