The Transcendental Argument for God is the only argument that can actually prove God. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Transcendental Argument for God is the only argument that can actually prove God.
in Philosophy

https://carm.org/transcendental-argument

The Cosmological, Teleological or even the Rationalist proofs are by themselves weak. I understand why atheists are unconvinced, unless we ''transcendentalize'' them into a TAG argument. 
Zombieguy1987Nathaniel_BSaint_SebastianSilverishGoldNova



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1655 Pts
    edited October 2018
    As a scientist, I need but one argument to agree that the God has been proven:

    Demonstrate the observable data inconsistent with the hypothesis of the lack of God.

    If the God exists in a clear form, it should not be hard to do. If it is hard to do, then the God either does not exist, or is so hidden behind the fabric of the Universe that it might as well not exist. In either case, the belief that the God exists is nothing but a Russell's Teapot theory.

    No logical trickery or cunningly designed philosophical construct is going to make up for the lack of real data. Just like you cannot agree that a unicorn exists without seeing some evidence of one's existence, you cannot agree that the God exists without seeing some evidence of its existence - and such an evidence so far has not been demonstrated a single time in history, by anyone. Joan of Arc probably came the closest to demonstrating it of all, but in the end her behavior and actions are very well explainable by modern psychology not involving any supernatural constructs. She was obsessed, and such degree of obsession as she exhibited is extremely rare (this is why she became such a prominent historical figure), but being at the edge of the Gaussian curve hardly qualifies for divine intervention. It is simple statistics, not heavenly magic. And same goes for Jesus of Nazareth, that was certainly an outstanding character, but well within the framework of psychology and expected human behavior.
    Orthodox_ChristiancheesycheeseZombieguy1987Evidence
  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited October 2018

    If logical absolutes don’t emerge from human minds, but instead mysteriously enter human minds, what’s their source and how do they get transferred to our minds?

    Can you address and prove the transfer. The argument is merely telling us that the source must be a non human mind, please demonstrate that?


    Also if you could prove it was a god you  claim to be a Christian ,how would you know it was your particular god?  

    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar
    This is the crackers in the pantry fallacy. You don't prove things like logical absolutes or God by directly observing them. There is no data/sense experience to prove that numbers and categories/essence exist either.  Trying to invoke the scientific method is also circular. The scientific method relies on logic, so trying to account for logic with the method is circular. Nor is it verifiable with sense experience that you can verify data with sense experience. Trying to accuse TAG of logical trickery despite using logic yourself when you made your argument is rather dishonest. TAG is an argument that talks about logic it's self, it's meta-logical. You did not address TAG but instead tried to shift the debate from metaphysics and epistemology to the natural world. This will not do, as using the scientific method has a lot of metaphysical, epistemological and even ethical presuppositions that need to be addressed and are only addressed by philosophy. I've seen this kind of argumentation tons of times, it comes, ironically enough, from not challenging presuppositions. TAG is presuppositional apologetics, it's arguing that the presupposition of logical absolutes existing and working in a non-theist worldview is not answered. More accurately, it has no answer. 

    >''No logical trickery or cunningly designed philosophical construct is going to make up for the lack of real data.''
    How do you justify this data? Are you sure that the data you receive is indeed that data? How would you, for an example, refute Hume's skepticism? Hume's skepticism is the logical conclusion of Empiricism.

    @Joeseph
      
    >''If logical absolutes don’t emerge from human minds, but instead mysteriously enter human minds, what’s their source and how do they get transferred to our minds?''

    We are able to process logical absolutes because they are conceptual by nature. We simply comprehend these concepts. The source is what TAG seeks to prove, the Divine Mind. 

    >''Can you address and prove the transfer. The argument is merely telling us that the source must be a non human mind, please demonstrate that?''

    If all human minds are killed, yet logic is not changed, then it would make sense for it to be at least non-human judging from this argument alone. After all, there was a time when no rational life could be alive, right? The Big Bang? Yet I am sure that the Big Bang was perfectly logical, at least in the Atheist worldview, it isn't that relevant to me.

    >''Also if you could prove it was a god you  claim to be a Christian ,how would you know it was your particular god?''
    All that TAG proves is that there is a personal God (meaning it is intelligent, mainly) that is the transcendent mind conceptualizing transcendental logical absolutes. To go farther from here, I would use the coherence theory of truth. All worldviews are circular, but we can examine to see if a worldview is consistent, and not all of them are. In fact, the only one I know is consistent is the Eastern Orthodox worldview, but before we go there, we should talk about TAG. Gotta stay on topic, after all.
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • The data is that it is extremely improbable that we exist without a god it takes more faith to believe that all of the things you’ve ever seen is the result of a creator
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • @Orthodox_Christian

    You say ....
    We are able to process logical absolutes because they are conceptual by nature. We simply comprehend these concepts. The source is what TAG seeks to prove, the Divine Mind. 

    My reply .... What is a “divine mind “ how does one prove it and it’s divinity? 



    You say ..If all human minds are killed, yet logic is not changed

    My reply ... But you cannot demonstrate that logic even exists without human minds how do you demonstrate that?

    You say ....then it would make sense for it to be at least non-human judging from this argument alone. After all, there was a time when no rational life could be alive, right? The Big Bang? Yet I am sure that the Big Bang was perfectly logical, at least in the Atheist worldview, it isn't that relevant to me.

    My reply ..... A God is subject to the laws of logical absolutes therefore he cannot be the author of them can he?  


    You say .....
    All that TAG proves is that there is a personal God (meaning it is intelligent, mainly) that is the transcendent mind conceptualizing transcendental logical absolutes. To go farther from here, I would use the coherence theory of truth. All worldviews are circular, but we can examine to see if a worldview is consistent, and not all of them are. In fact, the only one I know is consistent is the Eastern Orthodox worldview, but before we go there, we should talk about TAG. Gotta stay on topic, after all.

    My reply .... No it doesn’t prove there is a personal , how do you demonstrate this? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @cheesycheese
    I don't even know what you said. Can you reword this?
    >''What is a “divine mind “ how does one prove it and it’s divinity?''

    The Divine Mind is what conceptualizes logical absolutes. I'm not sure, did you read the link I posted?

    >'' But you cannot demonstrate that logic even exists without human minds how do you demonstrate that?''
    By reductio ad absurdum. Did the universe not follow logical laws before rational life existed? Like during the Big Bang? The Big Bang, in your worldview, cannot be illogical. Why would you believe in it then? The Big Bang did not violate any logical absolute. We can still say that things were logical before we existed. If the universe ceases to exist right now, a thing cannot be A and not be A at the same time. 1 + 1 = 2. Logic still exists. This is all demonstrated on the site, I'd expect you to respond on here to the site instead of asking things that are already demonstrated.

    >''A God is subject to the laws of logical absolutes therefore he cannot be the author of them can he?''
    Is He? God is only described here with negative terms, a transcendent being. Omni-anything isn't positive description, it's negative. Infinite means non-finite, because all we know about infinity is that it is non-finite. Same with God, all that we know (from this argument) it's the Mind that conceptualizes these transcendent concepts.

    >''No it doesn’t prove there is a personal , how do you demonstrate this?''

    The argument shows that a Divine Mind is necessary. I'm confused, perhaps you should demonstrate why the TAG is wrong.
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @Orthodox_Christian


    You say .....The Divine Mind is what conceptualizes logical absolutes. I'm not sure, did you read the link I posted?


    My reply ....I read the link yes , I’m asking you to define aspects of the argument is that not clear?




    You say .....By reductio ad absurdum. Did the universe not follow logical laws before rational life existed? Like during the Big Bang? The Big Bang, in your worldview, cannot be illogical. Why would you believe in it then? The Big Bang did not violate any logical absolute. We can still say that things were logical before we existed. If the universe ceases to exist right now, a thing cannot be A and not be A at the same time. 1 + 1 = 2. Logic still exists. This is all demonstrated on the site, I'd expect you to respond on here to the site instead of asking things that are already demonstrated.



    My reply .....Nothing has ever existed and nothing will ever exist outside my  mind, for me .


    They are certainly not demonstrated,  they’re asserted , if there were no human minds how would you prove that statement? 


    “A God is subject to the laws of logical absolutes therefore he cannot be the author of them can he?''

    You say .....Is He? God is only described here with negative terms, a transcendent being. Omni-anything isn't positive description, it's negative. Infinite means non-finite, because all we know about infinity is that it is non-finite. Same with God, all that we know (from this argument) it's the Mind that conceptualizes these transcendent concepts.


    My reply .....You can define a god anyway you wish but that does not address what I asked it’s just a meaningless word salad , so again I ask “ If a God is subject to the laws of logical absolutes  he cannot be the author of them” how does that work?




    You say ......The argument shows that a Divine Mind is necessary. I'm confused, perhaps you should demonstrate why the TAG is wrong.


    My reply .....It doesn’t it asserts such without proof the argument is just semantic word play nothing else 


    Also I’m merely testing the waters till I totally destroy Matt Slicks version of this much debunked argument 

    Also its interesting to note that you admit you do not know the nature or what type of god this god is so why do you believe in a Christian god , if you’re so unsure of what type of god is the “divine mind”?



    Saint_SebastianZombieguy1987
  • edited October 2018
    @joe

    >'I read the link yes , I’m asking you to define aspects of the argument is that not clear?''
    One proves it by demonstrating the reliance of logical absolutes on it. We call it Divine simply because it is transcendent.

    >''Nothing has ever existed and nothing will ever exist outside my  mind, for me''
    Which is impossible, since it would be impossible for your mind to have any concepts without the empirical world. It might not be provable to be the ''true'' reality but that's not necessary, what's necessary is that it is coherent. Even if you did not exist, you would not disprove that logic depends on your existence. Whether you exist or not, 1 + 1 = 2, this is a coherent view that is irrefutable. Whether the external world ''exists'' or not, a cannot be b and a at the same time.

    >''You can define a god anyway you wish but that does not address what I asked it’s just a meaningless word salad , so again I ask “ If a God is subject to the laws of logical absolutes  he cannot be the author of them” how does that work?''
    It's not meaningless world salad. No, God is not subject to the laws since He is omnipotent. But omnipotence is a negative property, it's only described through negation. So if you're going to use the classic ''paradoxes'' like the Epicurean or ''can He create a rock heavier than he can lift?'' it's not relevant, because omnipotence isn't definable positively. In other words, we literally can't comprehend it directly. You positively inserted that He is subject to Logical Absolutes. Not true, as He transcends even logic as we know it. You might think that He would be subject to these laws of logic as we are since He is the one conceptualizing them, but He conceptualizes them and we discover them. Him transcending logic is also a negative statement, we can't comprehend transcending logic, only that something can. 

    >''.It doesn’t it asserts such without proof the argument is just semantic word play nothing else ''
    Then demonstrate how.

    >''Also its interesting to note that you admit you do not know the nature or what type of god this god is so why do you believe in a Christian god , if you’re so unsure of what type of god is the “divine mind”?''
    The Christian God is also approached negatively. Negative theology is a big part of Eastern Orthodox theology in describing the Holy Trinity, God's Essence, or even our nature. I also talked about the coherence theory of truth. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Orthodox_Christian ;

    If there is no observable data available on the subject, then all of your constructs exist outside the scope of the real world. We may talk about goblins and elves by using some elaborate philosophical juggling, and we do all the time - but we usually make it clear that this is not in any way related to the real world, and we call it "fantasy" and "fiction".

    You are saying that you are challenging the presupposition by claiming that the presupposition of logical absolutes existing cannot be answered. This is a valid point, but it has little to do with your argument for god's existence. First, existence of logical absolutes is not necessary in order to prove or disprove the existence of god. And second, if logical absolutes existing cannot be verified (and if we assume that this invalidates the entire logical apparatus we are using - which is not true, by the way), then essentially no statement can be classified as "right" or "wrong", and then this entire debate is meaningless, because nothing can be proven and nothing can be gauged for matching or mismatching reality.

    When we use scientific method, we do not kid ourselves and think that it is infallible and objectively correct. We instead, by using our logical apparatus that has proven efficient throughout the last ~2500 years, have developed the method allowing us to consistently gain new knowledge about the Universe, and convert that knowledge into working technology - resulting in us being able to debate these things by looking at two displays separated by thousands miles of space. It is this practical usefulness that validates scientific method, and not some "logical absolutes", which do not exist, since logic itself is a product of our cognitive processes, which by their nature are subjective.

    Hume's skepticism says nothing new, it simply reiterates something that has been known for a long time: "Our judgment is restricted and skewed by our senses". This is a fundamental constraint that we will never be able to overcome without significantly altering our biology, and it puts natural limitation to our ability to gain knowledge about the world. It affects everything, including our ability to prove or disprove the existence of entity called "god". This is not supportive of your position; in fact, it speaks against it, since it states that we can never prove with 100% certainty that god exists.
     
    Saint_SebastianZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar ;
    >'If there is no observable data available on the subject, then all of your constructs exist outside the scope of the real world. We may talk about goblins and elves by using some elaborate philosophical juggling, and we do all the time - but we usually make it clear that this is not in any way related to the real world, and we call it "fantasy" and "fiction".''

    This is really bad strawman. There is no observable data for logic, yet we discuss it and think on it with it. We don't talk about our fantasies the same as we talk about logic or even how the scientific method operates. The scientific method its self has a lot of ethical, epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions that would need to be answered such as categories, truth its self, whether we should even be doing it etc. Tons of presuppositions. When you make almost any statement, there are tons of presuppositions in it. TAG is a part of presuppositional apologetics that seeks to show by questioning presuppositions we can examine the very foundations of a worldview. So we are questioning the very foundation of logic, what's the logic behind logic? It's meta-logic that's been talked about here. 
    >''You are saying that you are challenging the presupposition by claiming that the presupposition of logical absolutes existing cannot be answered. This is a valid point, but it has little to do with your argument for god's existence. First, existence of logical absolutes is not necessary in order to prove or disprove the existence of god.''

    If you'd read the argument, you would at the very least contest why a Divine Mind is the only possible explanation for logical absolutes. You'd challenge the statement that there are only 2 possible positions, the God position or the no-God position. I'd at least think you read it. Why they exist has everything to do with the argument, I doubt whether you have actually read it. Take this more seriously, please.

    >''And second, if logical absolutes existing cannot be verified (and if we assume that this invalidates the entire logical apparatus we are using - which is not true, by the way), then essentially no statement can be classified as "right" or "wrong", and then this entire debate is meaningless, because nothing can be proven and nothing can be gauged for matching or mismatching reality.''

    Exactly! So there has to be an explanation. 

    >'' It is this practical usefulness that validates scientific method, and not some "logical absolutes", which do not exist, since logic itself is a product of our cognitive processes, which by their nature are subjective.''

    Logical absolutes don't exist? So A can be B and A at the same time? Something can exist and not exist at the same time? Obviously not. In Aristotle's Metaphysics, the Sophists tried to deny the law of non-contradiction. When they did, Aristotle simply pointed out how they are implying it by denying it. It's a self-refutation to try and deny it. I'm also confused at how you contradicted yourself. did you not say above that if logical absolutes are not verified to exist (and according to this statement, they aren't) then truth can't be proven to exist? On the note of pragmatism, that's not really an argument. It ''just works'' because I think that my worldview is correct. It is my worldview that allows for you to use the scientific method. Pragmatism literally only means ''it works'' but it doesn't prove why it works. It's like we're arguing on what makes up a phone, and you simply said ''well, I know how to use it''. We're talking about why it works, not that it works. 

    >''Hume's skepticism says nothing new, it simply reiterates something that has been known for a long time: "Our judgment is restricted and skewed by our senses".''
    Actually, Hume's skepticism was that all that existed was the horizon of objects. Whatever that we perceive right at the present moment is all that proven to exist. If I recall correctly, he even criticized inductive reasoning. It's an assault on metaphysics. 

    >'' It affects everything, including our ability to prove or disprove the existence of entity called "god". ''
    Crackers in the pantry fallacy. Hume was simply the logical conclusion of Empiricism. God, like Logical Absolutes, are not proven with sense experience but with a priori reasoning. 

    >'...'since logic itself is a product of our cognitive processes''
    I really am doubting whether you read the argument. If that is so, does logic cease to exist if all rational minds cease to exist? There was a time when we didn't exist, did the time back then not work logically? Was math not objective back then? Math is also objective, and it is a part of logic.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Orthodox_Christian


    You say .....

    One proves it by demonstrating the reliance of logical absolutes on it. We call it Divine simply because it is transcendent.


    My reply ... The reliance of logical absolutes proves nothing as they are descriptive not prescriptive , the laws are simply a description of things we know to be true 



    You say ....Which is impossible, since it would be impossible for your mind to have any concepts without the empirical world. It might not be provable to be the ''true'' reality but that's not necessary, what's necessary is that it is coherent. Even if you did not exist, you would not disprove that logic depends on your existence. Whether you exist or not, 1 + 1 = 2, this is a coherent view that is irrefutable. Whether the external world ''exists'' or not, a cannot be b and a at the same time.


    My reply ....Without an observer, all possible realities exist , beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience.



    You say ..... No, God is not subject to the laws since He is omnipotent


    My reply .....If God is not subject to the laws that means he can make 2 + 2 not equal 4 but that’s impossible which means god is bound by the laws of logical absolutes therefore he couldn’t have created them 


    You  say ......But omnipotence is a negative property, it's only described through negation. So if you're going to use the classic ''paradoxes'' like the Epicurean or ''can He create a rock heavier than he can lift?'' it's not relevant, because omnipotence isn't definable positively. In other words, we literally can't comprehend it directly. 


    My reply .... That’s pure nonsense and it’s merely the god of the gaps argument as every problematic question has you adding another extra piece to the nature of this god you claim exists 


    You say .....You positively inserted that He is subject to Logical Absolutes. Not true, as He transcends even logic as we know it. You might think that He would be subject to these laws of logic as we are since He is the one conceptualizing them, but He conceptualizes them and we discover them. Him transcending logic is also a negative statement, we can't comprehend transcending logic, only that something can. 


    My reply .... Nonsense and more gobbledygook so  god could exist and not exist according to this “ theory “ ? Even a god has to conform to the rules of logic 


    You say .....

    Then demonstrate how.


    My reply .....


    I just have 


    You say .....

    The Christian God is also approached negatively. Negative theology is a big part of Eastern Orthodox theology in describing the Holy Trinity, God's Essence, or even our nature. I also talked about the coherence theory of truth. 


    My reply .... More nonsense to try and prove an unproven 


    Zombieguy1987
  • @Joeseph

    >''The reliance of logical absolutes proves nothing as they are descriptive not prescriptive , the laws are simply a description of things we know to be true''
    A representation of them on some paper, sure. But Logical Absolutes exist whether we exist or not.

    >''Without an observer, all possible realities exist , beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience.''
    I'm not how sure this is even relevant. Nor can all possible realities exist, that is contradictory to the law of non-contradiction.

    >''If God is not subject to the laws that means he can make 2 + 2 not equal 4 but that’s impossible which means god is bound by the laws of logical absolutes therefore he couldn’t have created them''
    >''That’s pure nonsense and it’s merely the god of the gaps argument as every problematic question has you adding another extra piece to the nature of this god you claim exists
    >''Nonsense and more gobbledygook so  god could exist and not exist according to this “ theory “ ? Even a god has to conform to the rules of logic''''
    It's not. You can literally only describe anything infinite negatively (what it is not) because that what the term infinite is, non-finite. In-finite. We don't actually comprehend infinity. Nor is god of the gaps relevant, that refers to blanks in scientific knowledge. We're talking about meta-logic. You can't just appeal to ignorance because you cannot understand what it means to describe something through what it is not. God making 2 + 2 =/= 4 means He would change this reality into something we cannot comprehend, and such, only describe it by saying ''it is not this reality''. 

    >''Nonsense and more gobbledygook so god could exist and not exist according to this “ theory “ ? Even a god has to conform to the rules of logic''
    See above.

    >''More nonsense to try and prove an unproven''
    You really don't get it. The coherence theory of truth means we determine what is true by its consistency because every worldview is circular. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @Orthodox_Christian

    How do you demonstrate that all opposing worldviews are incoherent?




    Slicks variation of TAG is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question,...


    If we cannot know everything doesn’t mean we fill the gap with god this is yet another fallacy you’re guilty off but yet denied it 

    The laws of logic were simply observed as always being true because  the laws of logic are not prescriptive, they do not require the mind of a deity or any other mind to exist. Human minds can identify them and put them into words, but the phenomena these laws refer to would continue to exist regardless of whether a deity or anyone else thought about them. 

    Slicks argument yet again fails

    Slick and you conflate the description of logical laws with the natural phenomena they refer to. Equating an object with its description is like equating a photograph of a car with the real thing;





    Zombieguy1987
  • So that moronic argument proves the existence of a god? Lol!  :joy:



    You can't be serious.
    Saint_SebastianZombieguy1987
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • I don't agree with any argument for the existence for God, but I can tend to classify them into at least decent thoughtful efforts (like the Cosmological argument which at least relied on strong inductive reasoning prior to modern cosmology) and those which are whishy washy and illogical nonsense (Teleological argument - "Oh I just believe the universe is so awesome and ordered that it couldn't have happened naturally therefore it didn't happen naturally!" is poor logic).

    This is the latter.

    1) The basic assumptions the argument relies on are unprovable subjective opinion - or at least I have never seen anyone actually manage to prove them.
    2) In trying to prove them you either prove the validity of a fundamentally subjective basis for logical deduction as you have to argue subjectively to prove logical absolutes exist or you have to rely on circular reasoning which is invalid.
    3) You have to come up with all kind of exceptions to handle paradoxes like "This sentence is false" and use wooly undefined terminology like "the realm of absolutes" to try and make claims without every really proving them beyond "Hey, this vaguely sounds right!"
  • @Orthodox_Christian

    A properly constructed fantasy or sci-fi world will abide by the rules of logic, given certain assumptions about how physics works in that world. For example, magic usually follows a certain model; the world usually has a very complicated history explaining how Elves, Dwarves, etc. came to be and how their civilizations reached the state they are in now.

    The only difference between a properly constructed fantasy world, and our world, is that our world matches the observable data we measure in a direct experiment, while the fantasy world matches the data we made up. In this regard, a hypothesis of god's existence not based on any observable data is literally something we made up, something that has no attachment to our reality and exists merely as an abstract philosophical construct.

    ---

    Questioning logic is good and all, but, again, no logic or lack of logic will help you if there is no data indicating that your statement is true. If I say "Cthulhu exists", while it does not, then, no matter what arguments I make and what deep philosophical model I construct, it will not make the Cthulhu suddenly appear. Cthulhu either exists and we can measure the effects of its existence, or it does not exist and the effects of its existence cannot be measured. There are only two options here, and, like I said, trying to mask the lack of data behind a veil of abstract logic will not achieve the desired outcome.

    ---

    I do not see the need to introduce any "logical absolutes". The world existed even when humanity did not, but its human interpretation did not exist, because humans did not exist. Human logic appeared as soon as humans became sapient and started categorizing data of the world around them in terms of time stamps and connections between them. Before humans, there could be some aliens' logic - but the world itself does not have a logic, it just exists. Logic is how we interpret the world. Logic is a human construct and not an inherent property of the world. Causality is (or, at least, we believe it is), logic is not.

    Same goes for your time notion. "Time" does not exist in the Universe in an abstract way; "time" is how we categorize the Universe. Time as a physical entity has existed since the Big Bang; time as a human concept has existed no longer than humanity has. It is possible that there are species out there whose brains work very differently from us, and who do not see time as a linear flow of events - they might not even have a concept of time in their language and science, although they probably have some analog of spacetime with something essentially playing the role of time.

    Same with math and everything else. Has 2+2=4 always held? According to our (imperfect) models, yes. Has there always been someone who could say that 2+2=4? Probably not.
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • @Joeseph
    >''How do you demonstrate that all opposing worldviews are incoherent?''
    They need to demonstrate that they are coherent. Although, I can demonstrate why atheistic worldviews are.
    >''Slicks variation of TAG is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question,...


    >''If we cannot know everything doesn’t mean we fill the gap with god this is yet another fallacy you’re guilty off but yet denied it''

    Actually, ''God of the Gaps'' refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, as I have said. Transcendental argumentation here is about asking the reason for the existence of logical absolutes and giving an argument to their existence. You should also include Craig's full quote and attribute it to him, because I know you're just copy pasting what he's saying. Did you get it from this site? http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/04/problems-with-presuppositional.html


    ''Where presuppositionalism muddies the waters is in its apologetic methodology. As commonly understood, presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of "petitio principii," or begging the question, for its advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism. Frame himself says that we are "forced to say, 'God exists (presupposition), therefore God exists (conclusion),' even though such reasoning is "clearly circular" (p. 217). It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, "God exists. Therefore, God exists"(pp. 232-33).''
    Craig continues:
    ''Furthermore, it would be circular reasoning if we were to try to show that the gospel is true on the basis of the Scriptures, since the Scriptures are a written expression of the gospel. Thus, while one can use the Scriptures as historical documentary evidence, one cannot, withouth begging the question, use them as God's Word to argue for the truth of God's Word. That is why Scripture as God's Word does not play a greater, distinct role in my religious epistemology (p. 315).''

    Craig misinterprets what presuppositional apolgetics are, unless he's talking about some shoddy version of it that I don't know of. Presuppositional apologetics hold that when you make a statement, there are presuppositions that need to be answered. Basically, we just keep on asking on the reason for something's existence until we get to the self-referential.
    >''The laws of logic that were simply observed as always being true because  the laws of logic are not prescriptive, they do not require the mind of a deity or any other mind to exist.''
    Then how do they exist?

    >''Human minds can identify them and put them into words, but the phenomena these laws refer to would continue to exist regardless of whether a deity or anyone else thought about them. ''
    You copy and pasted this from http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/do-laws-logic-prove-existence-god for sure. I'll just be quoting them here and refuting them.

    >>>"The problem with the TAG is that the laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, the laws are simply a description of things we know to be true. The universe does not conform to logical absolutes because someone thought them up and is holding reality to that standard. These absolutes exist purely to describe patterns that we have observed as true in reality. To understand the difference between a descriptive and prescriptive law, consider this example:

    Gravity is a descriptive law. Isaac Newton didn’t create gravity. It existed before he identified it and would have continued existing regardless of whether he had ever given it a name. The laws of gravity are simply observations made by scientists that explain natural processes.

    The traffic speed limit is a prescriptive law. It was created and enforced by people, and it’s meaningless without such enforcement. If no one came up with a speeding limit or held people accountable for speeding, speed limits would cease to exist.''

    TAG doesn't say that the logical absolutes were created and enforced by people, it even argues against this. Logical absolutes not being dependent on the physical world at all is a central part to the argument.

    >>>''In the same way, the laws of logic are descriptive. No one made them up or wrote them in a handbook somewhere for them to exist. They were simply observed as always being true (rocks are always rocks because if a rock were anything else, it would cease to be a rock). Because the laws of logic are not prescriptive, they do not require the mind of a deity or any other mind to exist. Human minds can identify them and put them into words, but the phenomena these laws refer to would continue to exist regardless of whether a deity or anyone else thought about them.''

    This doesn't answer whence logical absolutes, nor is it a sequitur that the laws of logic being descriptive means that they aren't dependent on the Divine Mind. The very last sentence is begging the question.

    >>>''Proponents of TAG conflate the description of logical laws with the natural phenomena they refer to. Equating an object with its description is like equating a photograph of a car with the real thing; although the photograph accurately depicts an image of the car, you cannot apply the qualities of the photo in accurately describing the real car. Otherwise, you might erroneously extrapolate that cars are flat and fit in the palm of your hand. The same is true for the laws of logic. The statement “A=A” is a conceptual description of a physical property. The statement itself requires a mind to describe it. However, the physical property would remain true, with or without a mind to conceive it. What this means is that these descriptions themselves are what is purely conceptual. But the laws they describe are not conceptual. What these laws refer to is the consistency of existence, which exists whether or not they’re being described or identified by a mind. A rock is always a rock because it exists in reality. If there were no mind to observe the rock, it would still be a rock. Minds are necessary only to describe that phenomenon, not to make it true. 


    The fallacy of equivocation occurs because the TAG argument uses logical absolutes in more than one sense (3). Logical absolutes, as described in step one of the TAG argument above, are physical underpinnings of the universe; in step two, they are the descriptions of those laws, like the photograph described earlier. Logical absolutes do exist. However, these laws are not conceptual in nature. We do not need any minds for them to exit. We only need minds to observe, understand and express these laws. Furthermore, our perceptions of these laws are by no means perfect, unchanging or absolute.''

    Also where you quoted the site from without credit. Now I see why I didn't understand your argument at first, it was incomplete. 
     Now, let us dissect this quote. 
    >>>''The statement “A=A” is a conceptual description of a physical property. The statement itself requires a mind to describe it. However, the physical property would remain true, with or without a mind to conceive it. What this means is that these descriptions themselves are what is purely conceptual. But the laws they describe are not conceptual. What these laws refer to is the consistency of existence, which exists whether or not they’re being described or identified by a mind.''
    If these laws are referring to the consistency of existence, are they not descriptive? Unless what is being said here is that while the Laws are indeed conceptual, and it's simply phenomena not being conceptual. But then the Laws are conceptual. The Laws are inherently descriptive according to AR, because they are still referring or making a description of reality. A rock isn't conceptual, but to say that a rock can't be a snail and a rock at the same time is a description of the rock, a concept.

    On another note, I'd define the Laws as being a description of what is real, true and ethical, not simply about the physical universe. Because A would still equal A, universe or not. The quote is correct in saying that the laws of logic aren't dependent on the universe. To quote TAG, ''...how can you logically assert that they are not conceptual realities since logic is a process of the mind and logical absolutes are truth statements which are also products of the mind? Expanded:  Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature, or they are not.'' 

    and

    ''

    1. If Logical Absolutes are said to be properties of the universe, then can they be measured the same way that other properties of the universe can be measured?  If they cannot, then how are they properties of the physical universe?''

      I also want to quote a comment from the article:

      'Sorry, but there's a major flaw in your argument.

      "Because the laws of logic are not prescriptive, they do not require the mind of a deity or any other mind to exist. Human minds can identify them and put them into words, but the phenomena these laws refer to would continue to exist regardless of whether a deity or anyone else thought about them."

      Here you point out the universality of the laws of logic and their existence and uniformity outside the minds of man.

      "We do not need any minds for them to exit. We only need minds to observe, understand and express these laws. Furthermore, our perceptions of these laws are by no means perfect, unchanging or absolute."

      Here you reiterate your point, but suggest that human minds merely observe the laws of logic. You also state that our observations are "by no means perfect, unchanging or absolute." There's an implied contradiction here. If we are mere observers of whatever we call "logic"in action, we have merely given a descriptive name to something that only makes as much sense as we know of it. Man's knowledge is finite, as you subtly acknowledge, so we can't know that, to use your illustration, somewhere in the universe apples really are rocks. Since man's knowledge is limited, and since our understanding of the laws of logic is not "perfect, unchanging, or absolute" doesn't this suggest that the "laws of logic" are a human invention to describe events to which we are witnesses?''

      >>>''Even if the premises of TAG were sound, the argument still leaves much to be desired as evidence of the existence of God. 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.

      In other words, the transcendent mind behind the rules of logic would not necessarily need to have any of the qualities commonly associated with deities, including benevolence, omnipotence, a role in the creation of the universe and a source of morality. There is nothing in the transcendental argument to suggest that the hypothetical mind behind the rules of logic was capable of or responsible for anything other than conceiving of those laws. As such, it would fail to actually prove anything about the existence of deities or provide convincing reason to worship or attempt to create personal relationships with god(s)''

      Basically, what this quote is saying here is that a transcendent mind is incapable of any thought process except for conceiving of these minds. But conceiving of these Logical Absolutes means that the Divine Mind is capable of logic, and therefore, is able to actually think. As for the omni-properties, it's implied that only a being that we can describe by negation is able to conceive of transcendent absolutes. God simply cannot be finite, otherwise He'd also be subject to logical absolutes (self-contradiction).

      @Ampersand
      >>>''1) The basic assumptions the argument relies on are unprovable subjective opinion - or at least I have never seen anyone actually manage to prove them.''

    Which assumptions? Please be precise so I can respond properly.

    >>>''2) In trying to prove them you either prove the validity of a fundamentally subjective basis for logical deduction as you have to argue subjectively to prove logical absolutes exist or you have to rely on circular reasoning which is invalid''

    If circular reasoning is invalid, then every worldview is invalid, as every worldview uses circular reasoning or axiomatic reasoning eventually. You just need to keep asking why and how until you make your loop or meet the presupposition. Anyways, I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but it seems to me you are implying that due to fallibility, my reasoning is subjective? If that is so, that is self-refuting. Or it simply means nothing. 

    >>>''3) You have to come up with all kind of exceptions to handle paradoxes like "This sentence is false" and use wooly undefined terminology like "the realm of absolutes" to try and make claims without every really proving them beyond "Hey, this vaguely sounds right!"''

    We have to exempt paradoxes if we ignore note 1:

    ''1. Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction.  Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.''

    The realm of absolutes is wooly to you because it is described by negation (it's not the physical realm). This statement, ironically enough, is pretty subjective and I am left confused on what exactly are you trying to point out here.

    @MayCaesar
    >>>''A properly constructed fantasy or sci-fi world will abide by the rules of logic, given certain assumptions about how physics works in that world. For example, magic usually follows a certain model; the world usually has a very complicated history explaining how Elves, Dwarves, etc. came to be and how their civilizations reached the state they are in now.''
    But if you keep asking ''why'' or ''how'' you'll either get axioms or circular reasoning. They are only coherent on the surface, it's impossible to have a reality different from ours in regards to its fundamental laws. Whence magic? Whence the source of source magic? It just keeps going on. Fantasies are just meant to be coherent on the surface, and they are just that, ''fantasies''.

    >>>''The only difference between a properly constructed fantasy world, and our world, is that our world matches the observable data we measure in a direct experiment, while the fantasy world matches the data we made up. In this regard, a hypothesis of god's existence not based on any observable data is literally something we made up, something that has no attachment to our reality and exists merely as an abstract philosophical construct.''

    If it's data we make up, then it's axiomatic, and therefore, it's still impossible. Now, I also see something akin to Kant's critique of the cosmological argument, that you can't just define something and predicate existence to it. By the way, the same applies to fantasies. It's a valid criticism, and it's why the cosmological and teleological arguments, as they stand, are insufficient. However, Kant was the first one to formulate TAG. His criticism doesn't apply because we aren't simply defining something, we are answering the question ''whence logic?''. We make a sequitur by examining the nature of logic, realize its nature, realize it's transcendent, and then realize what is necessary for it.

    >>>''Questioning logic is good and all, but, again, no logic or lack of logic will help you if there is no data indicating that your statement is true. If I say "Cthulhu exists", while it does not, then, no matter what arguments I make and what deep philosophical model I construct, it will not make the Cthulhu suddenly appear. Cthulhu either exists and we can measure the effects of its existence, or it does not exist and the effects of its existence cannot be measured. There are only two options here, and, like I said, trying to mask the lack of data behind a veil of abstract logic will not achieve the desired outcome.''

    This is totally ignoring what I said. Again, crackers in the pantry fallacy. Also... '' If I say "Cthulhu exists", while it does not, then, no matter what arguments I make and what deep philosophical model I construct, it will not make the Cthulhu suddenly appear.'' <---- this is begging the question. 
    >Something doesn't exist
    >I make an argument for it
    >The argument is invalid

    I don't believe that you can make an argument for Cthulhu, but when examining meta-logic, we can eventually make an argument for the existence of God. It is also circular to use the abstract logical concept of using data to try and disprove me. You cannot verify with data or the scientific method that you can verify data with the scientific method or data. You're still using logic without data to make the claim I require data. Let me make it clearer.

    ''1. All human knowledge comes through sense experience.
    2. The scientific method is a tool of inquiry by which we come to know things based on empirical observation. Therefore,
    3. Anyone who claims to believe in, or “know” a thing, must be able to “verify” that knowledge through the scientific method.  Any and all other claims of knowledge are dubious at best, and superstitious and delusional at worst.''

    Statement 1 cannot be verified with data, with sense experience or even with the scientific method. Whether data means verified knowledge by the method, or simply sense experience, statement 1 is an axiom that has to be addressed. Saying ''it just works'' doesn't tell us why it works. I'm not even saying it doesn't work at all, but it doesn't work in your worldview. 

    >>>''I do not see the need to introduce any "logical absolutes". The world existed even when humanity did not, but its human interpretation did not exist, because humans did not exist. Human logic appeared as soon as humans became sapient and started categorizing data of the world around them in terms of time stamps and connections between them. Before humans, there could be some aliens' logic - but the world itself does not have a logic, it just exists. Logic is how we interpret the world. Logic is a human construct and not an inherent property of the world. Causality is (or, at least, we believe it is), logic is not.''

    Whether humans were able to interpret the universe or not is not relevant in the sense you are trying to make it be. I'm asking you, did the world follow laws of logic before there were rational minds? I did not even say human minds. If we eliminated all rational beings right now, would logic cease to be relevant? Of course not, to say that if the entire physical universe ceased to exist then logic would cease to exist or be incorrect is ludicrous. Because we literally cannot comprehend logic not being correct or not existing. Logic has to be always correct, even if we interpret it imperfectly.

    >>>''Same goes for your time notion. "Time" does not exist in the Universe in an abstract way; "time" is how we categorize the Universe. Time as a physical entity has existed since the Big Bang; time as a human concept has existed no longer than humanity has. It is possible that there are species out there whose brains work very differently from us, and who do not see time as a linear flow of events - they might not even have a concept of time in their language and science, although they probably have some analog of spacetime with something essentially playing the role of time.''

    I actually meant as in the point of time in the universe before rational life would be alive. I think it's fair to say that we don't know the nature of other beings.

    >>>''Has 2+2=4 always held? According to our (imperfect) models, yes. Has there always been someone who could say that 2+2=4? Probably not.''
    Are people wrong sometimes? Yeah. ''Probably not'' isn't an argument either way, in philosophy you should be precise and decisive.

    @Nathaniel_B
    Alright smart guy, challenge me instead of having other people do it for you.
    Saint_SebastianZombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @Orthodox_Christian



    I asked ......”How do you demonstrate that all opposing worldviews are incoherent?''


    You say .....

    They need to demonstrate that they are coherent. 


    My reply .... I don’t the burden of proof is with you as you made the claim 



    You say .....Although, I can demonstrate why atheistic worldviews are.


    My reply ..... Atheism is a position on one question it’s not a “worldview “



    You say ....


    Actually, ''God of the Gaps'' refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, as I have said. 


    My reply .... Yes , which I said people like you try to fill with god 


    Transcendental argumentation here is about asking the reason for the existence of logical absolutes and giving an argument to their existence


    First you have to prove their existence can you do that?


    . You say ....You should also include Craig's full quote and attribute it to him, because I know you're just copy pasting what he's saying. Did you get it from this site? http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/04/problems-with-presuppositional.html


    My reply .... It was a given you knew where the quote came


    You say.....

    Craig misinterprets what presuppositional apolgetics are, unless he's talking about some shoddy version of it that I don't know of. 


    My reply ..... That leaves you guilty of The no true Scotsman fallacy 


    I asked ....

    “The laws of logic that were simply observed as always being true because  the laws of logic are not prescriptive, they do not require the mind of a deity or any other mind to exist.''


    You say ....

    Then how do they exist?


    My reply .... Logic does not exist outside of human consciousness because the universe simply exists, and it does not necesitate itself on human logic







    You say ....


    This doesn't answer whence logical absolutes, nor is it a sequitur that the laws of logic being descriptive means that they aren't dependent on the Divine Mind. The very last sentence is begging the question.


    My reply .... You’re only repeating yourself , and another blow to the whole argument is the way you define a “Divine Mind “as it makes the mistake of treating the existence of god as if it were another property , like omniscience, or omnipotentence


    God could not be either without existing so by defining him you have done so into existence 


    You say .....


    Also where you quoted the site from without credit. Now I see why I didn't understand your argument at first, it was incomplete. 


    My reply .....Actually I did give credit 


    That’s a rather long piece that’s basically not moving the argument along I will try and shorten it 



    You say .....On another note, I'd define the Laws as being a description of what is real, true and ethical, not simply about the physical universe. Because A would still equal A, universe or not. 


    My reply .... How do you prove that?






    You say .....Here you point out the universality of the laws of logic and their existence and uniformity outside the minds of man.



    I actually stated .....the phenomena these laws refer to would continue to exist regardless 


    We only need minds to observe, understand and express these laws. Furthermore, our perceptions of these laws are by no means perfect, unchanging or absolute."

    You say ....There's an implied contradiction here. If we are mere observers of whatever we call "logic"in action, we have merely given a descriptive name to something that only makes as much sense as we know of it. Man's knowledge is finite, as you subtly acknowledge, so we can't know that, to use your illustration, somewhere in the universe apples really are rocks. Since man's knowledge is limited, and since our understanding of the laws of logic is not "perfect, unchanging, or absolute" doesn't this suggest that the "laws of logic" are a human invention to describe events to which we are witnesses?''


    My reply .....logic is discovered, and language is a way to express logic, but not a condition for its existence.

    You say  .....

    Basically, what this quote is saying here is that a transcendent mind is incapable of any thought process except for conceiving of these minds. But conceiving of these Logical Absolutes means that the Divine Mind is capable of logic, and therefore, is able to actually think. As for the omni-properties, it's implied that only a being that we can describe by negation is able to conceive of transcendent absolutes. God simply cannot be finite, otherwise He'd also be subject to logical absolutes (self-contradiction).


    My reply .... Again you’re defining a god into existence by nailing any property you wish onto him every time a challenge comes up .


    Also you stated before that the divine mind is the author of these logical absolutes but not bound by them , if he is not bound by them this means he could change the logical absolutes , which means they cannot be absolutes can they? 


    Also you failed to answer the question I asked as in “ if god is not bound by logic he can make a square circle that makes logical sense , or he could and could not exist at the same time?

    Zombieguy1987
  • ''1. All human knowledge comes through sense experience.

    “Statement 1 cannot be verified with data, with sense experience or even with the scientific method.”

    Sure it can:

    a.) Look at all spheres of “human knowledge”. Assess which of these subjects data and information have been deducted from ‘sense experience’ - a clumsy term which really means empirical evidence. How many of these spheres of “knowledge” have information deduced from other means.

    The only examples of the latter are pseudoscience: aromatherapy, healing crystals, horoscopes, etc: which we know don’t work; and other forms of superstition such as religion.

    Now: you aren’t able to point to religion here as an example of why knowledge doesn’t need sensory data - because that’s the whole premise of your original post and it would be begging the question: but I can’t exclude it on those grounds either for the same reason.

    So the question boils down to whether religions “know” God exists or “believe God exists”.

    Given the whole concept of faith (at least Abrahamic religions), and themes in the bible concerning it: the whole point of religious belief is that it’s not knowledge, but believers must act as if it is. That on its own tends to undermine the whole argument.

    Secondly, and most importantly (and this is the whole point), I am trying to think of ways I could confirm that logical statements or Religious beliefs or conviction are knowledge. I can’t think of any ways to do that which do not fall down not empiricism - the whole notion.

    You claim that God must exist because of some logical argument - ok - how do I confirm that? What methods are at my disposable to confirm or disconfirm that statement?

    By what method may I validate and confirm the logical premises you’re making (we know - empirically - that logical conclusions are only as good as their premises)?


    And that’s the real problem - there is literally no other way to confirm whether a claim matches reality other    than Empiricism that can be shown to work. If you can’t show the process your using is reliable - then you can’t have confidence that the conclusions are valid. 

    If you’re not confident about the validity of those conclusions - you can’t claim those conclusions count as knowledge.










    Zombieguy1987
  • @Gooberry
    >>>''a.) Look at all spheres of “human knowledge”. Assess which of these subjects data and information have been deducted from ‘sense experience’ - a clumsy term which really means empirical evidence. How many of these spheres of “knowledge” have information deduced from other means.''

    But you're not simply using sense experience in this argument, you're using logic. As such, you're not verifying the statement with sense experience, but with logic. Saying that sense experience is required for knowledge is correct, I discovered this idea pondering on skepticism. But the point is being missed, you don't just use sense experience, you're using and even relying on logical absolutes which aren't empirically verifiable. No, don't tell me that they are verifiable by looking at the world. Those are just the effects, I'm talking about the absolutes themselves. Or meaning it's self. The many and the one problem isn't solvable simply with empirical evidence, you cannot determine whether the world is just one single unity, or perhaps many things. Such as the common example of the cloud. Is it one thing, or many things? Is there a dialectical tension between unity and multiplicity? Meta-logic isn't an empirical matter once we comprehend these abstracts. When I comprehend 1 + 1 = 2, it's done a priori because I already comprehend number. I don't need to be like a child in nursery and take one thing and move it next to another and think ''2''. I can do it in my head or on paper, doesn't really matter. It's a priori either way. 

    >>>''you aren’t able to point to religion here as an example of why knowledge doesn’t need sensory data - because that’s the whole premise of your original post and it would be begging the question: but I can’t exclude it on those grounds either for the same reason.''

    Sure, but I didn't if you were implying so. I don't think I ever did, it's irrelevant.

    >>>''Given the whole concept of faith (at least Abrahamic religions), and themes in the bible concerning it: the whole point of religious belief is that it’s not knowledge, but believers must act as if it is. That on its own tends to undermine the whole argument.''

    ''The fool said in his heart that there is no God''
    ''Man's wisdom is made foolishness''

    Faith in what God will do, not necessarily if He exists. It's alright to have faith in whether He exists, but you should most importantly have faith as in trusting in His mercy.

    >>>''Secondly, and most importantly (and this is the whole point), I am trying to think of ways I could confirm that logical statements or Religious beliefs or conviction are knowledge. I can’t think of any ways to do that which do not fall down not empiricism - the whole notion.

    You claim that God must exist because of some logical argument - ok - how do I confirm that? What methods are at my disposable to confirm or disconfirm that statement?

    By what method may I validate and confirm the logical premises you’re making (we know - empirically - that logical conclusions are only as good as their premises)?


    And that’s the real problem - there is literally no other way to confirm whether a claim matches reality other    than Empiricism that can be shown to work. If you can’t show the process your using is reliable - then you can’t have confidence that the conclusions are valid. 

    If you’re not confident about the validity of those conclusions - you can’t claim those conclusions count as knowledge.''


    Is it empirically verifiable that this argument is correct?

    >>>''If you can’t show the process your using is reliable - then you can’t have confidence that the conclusions are valid. ''
    Logical processes aren't reliable? That would make this claim unreliable. That would make Empiricism unreliable, because it still uses categories which aren't empirically verifiable themselves too. 
    Saint_SebastianZombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
  • @Gooberry
    >>>''a.) Look at all spheres of “human knowledge”. Assess which of these subjects data and information have been deducted from ‘sense experience’ - a clumsy term which really means empirical evidence. How many of these spheres of “knowledge” have information deduced from other means.''

    But you're not simply using sense experience in this argument, you're using logic. As such, you're not verifying the statement with sense experience, but with logic. Saying that sense experience is required for knowledge is correct, I discovered this idea pondering on skepticism. But the point is being missed, you don't just use sense experience, you're using and even relying on logical absolutes which aren't empirically verifiable. No, don't tell me that they are verifiable by looking at the world. Those are just the effects, I'm talking about the absolutes themselves. Or meaning it's self. The many and the one problem isn't solvable simply with empirical evidence, you cannot determine whether the world is just one single unity, or perhaps many things. Such as the common example of the cloud. Is it one thing, or many things? Is there a dialectical tension between unity and multiplicity? Meta-logic isn't an empirical matter once we comprehend these abstracts. When I comprehend 1 + 1 = 2, it's done a priori because I already comprehend number. I don't need to be like a child in nursery and take one thing and move it next to another and think ''2''. I can do it in my head or on paper, doesn't really matter. It's a priori either way. 

    >>>''you aren’t able to point to religion here as an example of why knowledge doesn’t need sensory data - because that’s the whole premise of your original post and it would be begging the question: but I can’t exclude it on those grounds either for the same reason.''

    Sure, but I didn't if you were implying so. I don't think I ever did, it's irrelevant.

    >>>''Given the whole concept of faith (at least Abrahamic religions), and themes in the bible concerning it: the whole point of religious belief is that it’s not knowledge, but believers must act as if it is. That on its own tends to undermine the whole argument.''

    ''The fool said in his heart that there is no God''
    ''Man's wisdom is made foolishness''

    Faith in what God will do, not necessarily if He exists. It's alright to have faith in whether He exists, but you should most importantly have faith as in trusting in His mercy.

    >>>''Secondly, and most importantly (and this is the whole point), I am trying to think of ways I could confirm that logical statements or Religious beliefs or conviction are knowledge. I can’t think of any ways to do that which do not fall down not empiricism - the whole notion.

    You claim that God must exist because of some logical argument - ok - how do I confirm that? What methods are at my disposable to confirm or disconfirm that statement?

    By what method may I validate and confirm the logical premises you’re making (we know - empirically - that logical conclusions are only as good as their premises)?


    And that’s the real problem - there is literally no other way to confirm whether a claim matches reality other   than Empiricism that can be shown to work. If you can’t show the process your using is reliable - then you can’t have confidence that the conclusions are valid. 

    If you’re not confident about the validity of those conclusions - you can’t claim those conclusions count as knowledge.''


    Is it empirically verifiable that this argument is correct?

    >>>''If you can’t show the process your using is reliable - then you can’t have confidence that the conclusions are valid. ''
    Logical processes aren't reliable? That would make this claim unreliable. That would make Empiricism unreliable, because it still uses categories which aren't empirically verifiable themselves too. 
    1.) Yes, I am using sense experience - I was incredibly careful to explain what sense experience I was using and how.

    Specifically - looking at reality and the spheres of humanknowledge and looking at which of these count as knowledge - and which of these are based on empirical data (all of them).

    Now - you are incorrectly holding logic to some mythical and magic status. Logic works because it is, on the whole empirically validated.

    We know a cloud can’t also be a rock, because we haven’t ever seen anything close to a rock being a cloud. 

    If we ever observed a rock being a cloud: it would be the measurements that wins, and logic that would be invalidated.

    Note: that’s already happened with Quantum theory - the observations of quantum theory invalidate the notional laws of logic we have.

    2.) “Is it empirically verifiable that this argument is correct?”


    Yes - and that’s the beauty of empiricism.


    To show empiricism is wrong - find a way to demonstrate a particular conclusion is true - to a high degree of confidence without using any empirical data or method. Conversely - to show that empiricism is empirically valid - I just need to show that observations indicate that it’s the only way to be confident about conclusions:


    How you do that was the entire topic of the reply you’re quoting.



    3.) Logic isn’t reliable?


    Of course it isn’t. For two reasons. 


    A.) 

    P1. All humans dance on their heads if Kanye farts.

    P2. Kanye farts.

    P3. You are a human.

    C: you dance on your head when Kanye farts.


    Valid; logical: completely wrong.

    Logic is only as good as its premises - so you have to confirm the premise - you can only do that empirically.


    B.) 


    P1.) An object cannot be two different things at the same time.

    P2.) If an empirical example is found that disproved P1, Logic alone is not a reliable indicator of reality.

    P3.) empirical examples of (P1) have been found.

    C.) logic is not a valid and reliable indicator is reality.


    I’ve just used logic to disprove logic. So either logic is wrong, or it’s right (in which case it’s also wrong).


    Both of these cast doubt on logic alone being some universal lynch pin - and demonstrate that it is very much inherently unreliable, because of the way it works.



    3.) Now for the death-knell.


    Logic is a methodology for deducing true and false.


    A rock isn’t true or false. It’s a rock. Stuff in the universe - absent a human - is not true or false. The concepts just doesn’t exist.


    Could a rock also be a cloud? Logic says no - this is not because there is some transcendent rule that says it can’t - but because our observations of the world seem to reveal that one object can’t be two mutually exclusive things at the same time - and we constructed rules of logic to detect such errors in people’s claims.


    As stated - the laws of logic are only as good as the empirical data that agrees with them. If we ever find a cloud rock - that logic goes out of the window - and has with the discovery of Quantumn physics - our logic has been thrown out of the window and replaced with a set of arguably absurd rules that match observations.

    Zombieguy1987
  • I'd like to know why, in your opinion, the Cosmological, Teleological or even the Rationalist proofs are by themselves weak. I am interested on this statement as a Thomist with an special interest on this, could you elaborate when you have the time as why you consider them insufficient?
    Thank you.
    Zombieguy1987
    But the water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting. John 4:14
  • @Saint_Sebastian

    The O P is partially correct except he should have stated  all the “proofs” for a god although amusing intellectual excercises are indeed weak 
    Saint_Sebastian
  • edited October 2018
    @Joeseph
    I am afraid I was not looking for a poorly phrased, moking post with no desire to instruct or help. Unless you can properly show (in a civilized manner) why OP claims this arguments are individually weak, I have no wish to hear from you.
    Joeseph
    But the water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting. John 4:14
  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @Saint_Sebastian

    You say ......
    I am afraid I was not looking for a poorly phrased,

    My reply .... How amusing a poorly constructed reply as in the intellectually backward use of “ I am afraid “ what does that even mean in the context of your response ......PS what’s” moking  “ mean 

    You continue ...... post with no desire to instruct or help.

    My reply .... Instruction would have followed but illumination possibly not as that sort of “help “ you’re undoubtedly beyond 

    You unfortunately continue thus ......Unless you can properly show (in a civilized manner) 

    My reply .... Rather rich coming from someone who’s response to my statement was an uncouth retort to what I can prove is correct 

    You say .....why OP claims this arguments are individually weak, I have no wish to hear from you.

    My reply .... Don’t worry you will receive no response and your cowardice is noted , this is a debate if you’re too terrified or incapable of debate maybe you need a new interest .

    Any further communication from you is not worth posting as I feel it would be equally void of implication if this poorly  worded piece of doggerel you penned is anything to go on 


  • @Nathaniel_B
    Alright smart guy, challenge me instead of having other people do it for you.
    Son, I wasn't really gonna WASTE my time with that. I already read half the page and I know what they was talking about. Who doin it for me? Who?
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • You gotta teach me the quote thing please, it'd make my posts much more easier to read. I also gotta apologize how I sometimes structure my arguments, reading some of them now, they look silly and redundant. ''X is false. As such, X is false''. Give me a break, me.

    >>>''1.) Yes, I am using sense experience - I was incredibly careful to explain what sense experience I was using and how.

    Specifically - looking at reality and the spheres of humanknowledge and looking at which of these count as knowledge - and which of these are based on empirical data (all of them).

    Now - you are incorrectly holding logic to some mythical and magic status. Logic works because it is, on the whole empirically validated.

    We know a cloud can’t also be a rock, because we haven’t ever seen anything close to a rock being a cloud. 

    If we ever observed a rock being a cloud: it would be the measurements that wins, and logic that would be invalidated.

    Note: that’s already happened with Quantum theory - the observations of quantum theory invalidate the notional laws of logic we have.''

    You are, but you aren't just using it. You take in sense experience (I use this term distinctly from empirical evidence because I use empirical evidence as sense experience verified by the scientific method) and use logic to categorize what you sense. Categories themselves, however, are not empirically verifiable. Things in the category can be, sure, but cageory its self is immaterial, it's a subset of logic. When you looked at a rock, you categorized/classified it. We didn't determine that a rock can't be a cloud because we've never simply seen a cloud be a rock. That kind of thinking means ''well, it might be possible. We just need to see it''. Because we can't comprehend a rock, something we categorize as solid, maybe grey, whatever being like a cloud. We categorize them differently. But isn't a purely empirical process, obviously, because category its self is immaterial. They are not in our minds, images are, memories of our sense experience (which aren't empirically verifiable, by the way. If you're going to use biology, you can't empirically verify your memory on biology. Hume realized this and his skepticism is the logical conclusion of empiricism.) yet we are able to speak of the same idea to another despite having different sense experiences of what is said at hand. 

    When you say that by using your sense experience to validate sense experience, that's being self-referential. You say that you ''look'' at these spheres of knowledge and see knowledge deduced from the external world. But you haven't verified it yet. You cannot empirically justify your senses. What you gave was the pragmatic ''it just works'' argument which doesn't actually tell me anything. You cannot look at your own eyesight. You cannot hear your own hearing. Which is what I was pretty much asking. Before you can get to the scientific method and proper empirical evidence, you need experience from the senses. You cannot test what you cannot directly experience, right? 

    Empiricist and Rationalist philosophers realized that when their worldviews' presuppositions are challenged enough they are forced to turn to skepticism. Hence Descartes's demon hypothesis or Hume's skepticism, as the more famous examples. 

    >>>''Yes - and that’s the beauty of empiricism.''

    You aren't using sense experience, you're using logic. Whether logic is comprehended with sense experience is irrelevant, you're still abstractly thinking.

    >>>''To show empiricism is wrong - find a way to demonstrate a particular conclusion is true - to a high degree of confidence without using any empirical data or method. Conversely - to show that empiricism is empirically valid - I just need to show that observations indicate that it’s the only way to be confident about conclusions:''

    Does math count as using empirical data or methods? Well, how about this one:
    1. The Law of non-contradiction is undeniable.
    2. The LNC is false.
    3. By implying it cannot be true while 2. is true, I imply it.
    4. So, any refutation of the LNC is self-refuting.

     ''I just need to show that observations indicate that it’s the only way to be confident about conclusions'' <-- How so, when you can't justify your empirical evidence with empirical evidence? Is it self-referential? Logical Absolutes are, actually.

    ''3.) Logic isn’t reliable?


    Of course it isn’t. For two reasons. 


    A.) 

    P1. All humans dance on their heads if Kanye farts.

    P2. Kanye farts.

    P3. You are a human.

    C: you dance on your head when Kanye farts.


    Valid; logical: completely wrong.

    Logic is only as good as its premises - so you have to confirm the premise - you can only do that empirically.


    B.) 


    P1.) An object cannot be two different things at the same time.

    P2.) If an empirical example is found that disproved P1, Logic alone is not a reliable indicator of reality.

    P3.) empirical examples of (P1) have been found.

    C.) logic is not a valid and reliable indicator is reality.''

    Using false premises isn't proof that logic its self is unreliable. Because using false premises isn't logical.

    ''Logic is a methodology for deducing true and false.


    A rock isn’t true or false. It’s a rock. Stuff in the universe - absent a human - is not true or false. The concepts just doesn’t exist.''
    Is this statement true or false? If the concepts don't exist, then what makes this statement true? Or any statements true? A more relevant question, is the rock real?

    >>>''Could a rock also be a cloud? Logic says no - this is not because there is some transcendent rule that says it can’t - but because our observations of the world seem to reveal that one object can’t be two mutually exclusive things at the same time - and we constructed rules of logic to detect such errors in people’s claims.


    As stated - the laws of logic are only as good as the empirical data that agrees with them. If we ever find a cloud rock - that logic goes out of the window - and has with the discovery of Quantumn physics - our logic has been thrown out of the window and replaced with a set of arguably absurd rules that match observations.''

    Except it is paradoxical to deny the law of non-contradiction. Nor is everything we believe in that is true is empirically verifiable. Perfect shapes, down to the very atoms do not exist. Yet we can theorize about them and make correct mathematical statements about them. I could never see a triangle, yet if I was smart enough, I could draw it in my head and find out about the Pythagorean Theorem. Even if I never saw thousands of things at once while knowing that (atoms don't count, I don't see them) I am seeing thousands of things... I can still make mathematical statements that are correct about billions of things. Even if 2 things only were empirically verifiable for me, I could still do math and theorize past two. We can never find a cloud rock because it is literally incomprehensible to us. Categories cannot criss-cross like that. I'm not going to believe quantum mechanics when any objection to the LNC falls flat before it takes off. The Sophists thought they could do this, and Aristotle made the lot look all like fools by giving the first recorded transcendental argument. 

    The discovery of Logical Absolutes do comes from observing the world, but more reliably from rational theoretical thought. But we call them transcendental because we know that the world will still operate on these principles even if we aren't there to observe them. Logical Absolutes aren't just things we made up, because if that was so, it would be logical to say that the world will be incomprehensible once every rational mind gets killed off or whatever.

  • @Gooberry Forgot to ping you
    @Nathaniel_B Whatever, pal. You clearly are way more smarter than like the best philosophers ever.
  • https://carm.org/transcendental-argument

    The Cosmological, Teleological or even the Rationalist proofs are by themselves weak. I understand why atheists are unconvinced, unless we ''transcendentalize'' them into a TAG argument. 

    @Orthodox_Christian OP - "The Transcendental Argument for God is the only argument that can actually prove God."


    Criticisms of transcendental arguments - Wikipedia

    As stated above, one of the main uses of transcendental arguments is to use one thing we can know, the nature of our experiences, to counter skeptics' arguments that we cannot know something or other about the nature of the world. One need not be a skeptic about those matters, however, to find transcendental arguments unpersuasive. There are a number of ways that one might deny that a given transcendental argument gives us knowledge of the world. The following responses may suit some versions and not others.

    • First, critics respond by claiming that the arguer cannot be sure that he or she is having particular experiences. That a person cannot be sure about the nature of his or her own experiences may initially seem bizarre. However, it may be claimed that the very act of thinking about or, even more, describing our experiences in words, involves interpreting them in ways that go beyond so-called 'pure' experience.

    • Second, skeptics object to the use of transcendental arguments to draw conclusions about the nature of the world by claiming that even if a person does know the nature of his or her experiences, the person cannot know that the reasoning from these experiences to conclusions about the world is accurate.

    • Lastly, critics have debated whether showing that we must think of the world in a certain way, given certain features of experience, is tantamount to showing that the world answers to that conception. Perhaps transcendental arguments show only necessities of our cognitive apparatus rather than realities of the world apart from us. This objection may amount to throwing doubt on whether transcendental arguments are ever more than merely "regressive"

    First I ask: "Who Am I?"

    If just flesh and blood, with a brain that hallucinates consciousness, and through this hallucination interprets the electronic signals that my brain is receiving through my five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell of the world around me, then my concept of God would be the same, someone who is either created by nature (theistic/atheistic concept of god/gods like through evolution) or someone or something created by me, us man from our imagination, manifested by the labor of our hands (idols).

    So who are we, just flesh and blood?
  • @Evidence
    >>>''
    • Second, skeptics object to the use of transcendental arguments to draw conclusions about the nature of the world by claiming that even if a person does know the nature of his or her experiences, the person cannot know that the reasoning from these experiences to conclusions about the world is accurate.
    • First, critics respond by claiming that the arguer cannot be sure that he or she is having particular experiences. That a person cannot be sure about the nature of his or her own experiences may initially seem bizarre. However, it may be claimed that the very act of thinking about or, even more, describing our experiences in words, involves interpreting them in ways that go beyond so-called 'pure' experience.
      ''

      This is about transcendental arguments disproving skepticism so it's not really relevant. But, I'd like to respond to this saying that this is a great criticism of Empiricism, this could be mediated by saying that while we can't claim to know the absolutely true or real reality, we can know a coherent one at least.

      >>>''If just flesh and blood, with a brain that hallucinates consciousness, and through this hallucination interprets the electronic signals that my brain is receiving through my five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell of the world around me, then my concept of God would be the same, someone who is either created by nature (theistic/atheistic concept of god/gods like through evolution) or someone or something created by me, us man from our imagination, manifested by the labor of our hands (idols).''

      In your brain are images, but the categories you discover for these images aren't in your brain. They are immaterial, after all, when I speak of a ''dog'', you understand what I mean. We are able to understand each other despite seeing different dogs, we know about ''dog-ness''. Also, what is hilariously self contradictory, is that the concept of you being a brain in a vat here is self-contradictory since any knowledge of you being in an illusion is also an illusion. BIV is only a position to throw at people who don't have a casually correct worldview. Nor did you make an argument against TAG. The hallucination seems to still listen to laws of logic that you are unable to coherently deny. There is something more than just hallucination, the laws of logic appear to be transcendent. You'd try to argue against this if you actually read TAG, not copy and paste Wikipedia.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch