Further, it characterizes A as being incapable of accounting for X and Y, because in actuality X and Y are only required in order to find in favor of the proposal that a god exists, not in order that its existence be disproved. If you were to accept the premise that universal concepts require a universal mind to think of them, there is nothing to suggest what that mind might be like. Saying that "a statement is a theorem of logic" does not account for logic but presupposes the existence of logic. TAG argues that without God knowledge is impossible, which the explanation is the following: The problem with such argument is as follows: Michael Martin, the late atheist professor of philosophy, has argued that the exact same argument can be used to argue for the non-existence of God. The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God. It's not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason that 'number of eyes' is a value that doesn't vary between healthy humans.". This argument was first proposed by Immanuel Kant in 1763, in his work The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God, but rejected as he entered his Critical period. "Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. But, however the basic arguments of TAG apologetics are phrased, and however insistent the interlocutor is that it is actually the skeptic who needs to "open their mind", it is an inescapable fact that the TAG fails to pass the first basic test as to whether or not it constitutes a logically valid proposal, since it assumes the basic existence of that which its own claims are predicated upon, but which cannot be objectively demonstrated. He explains what he means by this as follows: They do not become transcendent because they are widely used. Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. This is begging the question. If someone says that a piece of wood is water by nature, I would say that it is not. Now, leap into the air, as promised.". If the no-god position, atheism, clearly fails to account for Logical Absolutes from its perspective, then it is negated, and the other option is verified. ", Person A: "I can fly around this room, simply by flapping my arms and legs. 32 Immanuel Kant . On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since we're dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual realities--not physical ones. Brotha: How much as humans should we make logic a big deal? THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUEMENT. If you mean a computer or something of that kind, this doesn't help you because humans designed them using logic. Michael R. Butler . However, if logic is created by or contingent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. Matt Slick is the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. Although Immanuel Kant rarely uses the term ‘transcendentalargument’, and when he does it is not in our current sense (cf.Hookway 1999: 180 n. 8), he nonetheless speaks frequently of‘transcendental deductions’, ‘transcendentalexpositions’, and ‘transcendental proofs’, whichroughly speaking have the force of what is today meant by‘transcendental argument’. A fish is a fish--not a car. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time. This is something I have brought out before so that their categories do not get mixed. Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature, or they are not. Therefore, this demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect. Therefore science presupposes the non-existence of any miracle-granting gods (God(s) that don't ever give miracles fall(s) into the category of Non-Overlapping Magisteria and are thus more compatible). They cannot be constructs of human minds because human minds contradict each other and themselves where Logical Absolutes do not. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence. I will be defending the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (hereafter TAG) and I just want to make it a little clearer what's going on with this argument. Such morality would never be objective anyway, because it wouldn't apply to God. Logical Absolutes are self-authenticating. If you disagree that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature, then please explain what they. Consider by analogy, the following conversation: There are many similar semantic word traps and circular reasoning built into TAG apologetics, of which the debating skeptic / positive agnostic / atheist, unfamiliar with the TAG modus operandi can easily fall foul. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute but dependent upon human minds. By contrast, logical absolutes are not made of matter. Another question is: Does morality even exist? But the use of the word "if" is extremely disingenuous. It is either true or false that you are reading this. That is, they are not the product of human thinking. You're just. What is moral at one end of the scale and immoral at the other, does not mean that shades of grey cannot and do not exist in-between. This video explains the philosophical argument known as the transcendental style of argument. Eyes are organs. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a theistic worldview, and that God must be the source of logic and morals. While this is true, it does not explain their existence. It argues that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a theistic worldview, as God must be the "source" of logic and morality. If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with language. ” I am a subscriber to Rationality Rules and there are many good videos where he explains the serious problems with a number of arguments, particularly for the existence of “God.” Firstly, even if you could prove the basic existence of a specific god, it wouldn't necessarily follow that he/she/it is therefore the arbiter of absolute moral authority. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true. ", Person B: "I can see how you might think that, but how do I know you're not wearing a hidden wire? It just says they are because they are. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space. Asserting it doesn't make it so, and concluding that chemical reactions lead to logical inferences has not yet been established to be true or even that it could be at all. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space; and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature. If they are a part of natural existence (the universe), then they would cease to exist if the universe ceased. The basic idea of TAG is that certain things that atheists assume are true can only be true if there is a God. Yes, and here it is. In other words, only by presupposing the existence of God could a person explain the coherence of … Obviously, TAG is a transcendental argument (hereafter TA) , but *what* exactly is a TA? If there is no one around with the transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe tomorrow differ from its behavior today? If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. This would mean that if people later disagreed on what was a Logical Absolute, then the absolutes would change based on "vote," and they would not then be absolute. The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) attempts to show that logic, science, ethics and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of God.Since logic "exists", then so must God. But semantics by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals. Atheism cannot account for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, namely, the existence of logical absolutes. Again, the problem would be that human minds are different and contradict each other. The traditional arguments are in fact necessary to establish the existence of God as a transcendental conclusion. It is begging the question. Simply saying they don't need a transcendental existence doesn't make it so nor does it account for their existence. It has been widely discredited ever since the scientific enlightenment, so naturally it remains hugely popular with Christian theologians and philosophers. SEP has this to say on transcendental arguments: "As standardly conceived, transcendental arguments are taken to be distinctive in involving a certain sort of claim, namely that X is a necessary condition for the possibility of Y—where then, given that Y is the case, it logically follows that X must be the case too.". Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God2 3, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated. Secondly, it is not true to say that an atheistic worldview cannot account for an absolute standard of morality. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. For example, a cloud is a cloud--not a rock. With TAG's argument, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument within the realm of presuppositional apologetics. Prior exemplars of sucharguments may perhaps by claimed, such as Aristotle’s proof of theprinciple of non-contradiction (see Metaphysics1005… They are constructs in our minds (i.e., brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc., suggested by the fact that logic--like language--is learned--not inbuilt (balls in your court to demonstrate an independent existence or problem with this).". If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known. To say that Logical Absolutes are axioms is to beg the question by saying they are simply self-evident truths because they are self-evident truths and fails to account for their existence. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world. They do not stop being true dependent on location. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world. It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes. To make the situation worse, all the scriptures give a somewhat different (albeit. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true. But, of course, you wouldn't accept this as being valid. Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by. As stated above how does one establish that one chemical state in the brain which leads to another state necessitates proper logical inference? Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence. The sentence "this statement is false" does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. This page was last modified on 24 November 2020, at 23:26. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday. Since the nature of logic is conceptual and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual upon which logical processes are based, it would seem logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused is if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them. But more than that, it undermines any argument that tries to use logic to prove God’s existence. . If God can change it on his fiat, then morality is not objective. If they were properties of the universe, then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. For had he one that yielded . … "I am alive" is either true or false. The objection is invalid. For example, I know what water is. You don't have to know the input or understand the guidance from anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true. If you have any issues, please call the office at 385-246-1048 or email us at email@example.com. The response would be, "Since you don't know what it is, how do you know what it is not?" The first is located here where we had discussed the nature of true and a simulation hypothesis (that we will in an illusory world). So, comparing the rules of chess to logical absolutes is invalid. Essentially, this is begging the question stating that something exists because it exists. He argued from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that without the existence … Van Til claims that only transcendental or indirect arguments bring us to the conclusion that the God of the Bible exists.