Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

I wasn't aware that TAG had three steps, I thought it was entirely

"God exists"

LOL Well, in all seriousness, working toward an conclusion already decided on prior to the search is the core logical fallacy of all of these "proofs". If you've already decided what you want to believe, you can come up with "reasons" or cherry-picked evidence to back it up.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nevermind the the fact that attempting to argue god into existence is dripping with comedy. "I have an argument!" So what, evidence? Let's plug in Xenu. What do they call an argument that can be leveraged to reach two contradictory conclusions? Ah yes, unsound. The whole business is just a dishonest attempt to stump the "opposition". I lose respect for anyone who decides to put it on.

---

"The Number 4 Summary"
To summarize, a simple analogy to the logical absolutes would be abstract mathematics. The number 4 is “transcendent” by the TAG definition. It isn't a 'thing' that 'exists'. It cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured. It is always the number 4. It always remains the same. It always remains true.
However, if there were no minds in existence to conceive of the number 4, the shape we currently call a square would still have the same number of sides it has now. It would not physically gain or lose any sides. The abstraction of the number 4 is conceptual, but the concept isn't dependent on a transcendent mind for the real world underpinning of the concept to remain true.

Sound familiar Ryft?

---

[Citereh]

This website may be of some interest to those who need proof of observable evolution.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/

These sound more like your opinions and story telling than anything having to do with science. Did someone directly observe this? I remember sitting in Advanced Evolutionary Biology in university and listening to the Professor talk about how one day a dinosaur that had developed feathers for warmth ran with its arms outstretched to capture food and accidentally learned how to fly. I rejected that form of story telling just as much as I reject yours here.

I mention this as Mr Waldolf mentioned previously in this thread how Atheists like to quote evolution but cannot prove it through observable sciencific study, and due to there being no observable evidence to suggest that evolution is a continual progressive phenomenon it cannot be true.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, a believer will argue against anything that contradicts their faith, no matter how well attested or observed. It simply must be untrue. They will similarly argue for anything that confirms their faith, no matter how well refuted or dissected. Their faith compels them to do so. It's a bit of a script where both sides arguments have already been hashed out well in advance. That faith has yet to meet the burden of proof is simply an observation of the situation on the ground. Maybe one day it will. It would require significant refinement of faith, or a scientific discovery that overturns nearly everything we know about the world around us (or both). Till then they know their part, they know our part, and they will continue to trudge along with what they have until something better comes along. The prospect that something better may come along is a positive one for me, personally. I can't place the quote but something along the lines of "It would be a shame if the universe gave up her secrets all at once, and forever."

[Ryft]

Do you feel that you have a refined version of TAG that avoids the fallacies of equivocation, division, false dichotomy, and special pleading?

Do you feel that you have a refined critique of the TAG that avoids the fallacies of begging the question, straw man, ad lapidem, and red herring? See, while this sort of poisoning the well might score rhetorical points—for either side of the dispute—it does nothing to promote understanding or move the conversation forward. Unsubstantiated rhetorical snipes from the peanut gallery has its place and can be entertaining, but at the end of the day that is all it is: entertaining. But hey, it's good for the giggles and the choir loves it.

I am not inclined to seek another version of the TAG until something can be found wrong with the one advanced by the likes of Van Til, Bahnsen, Oliphint, Butler, et al. I would say feel free to demonstrate the errors you allege, but that would require something resembling an argument—and those just don't have the entertainment value that peanut gallery rhetoric does. And as a preemptive note, I have been studying the theology and philosophy of this methodology for over five years, from both its proponents (Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, etc.) and opponents (Martin, Loftus, Dillahunty, etc.) so hopefully we can forgo assuming any ignorance on my part.

Speaking more specifically to presuppositionalism, do you feel that there can be any grounds for debate when the demand is made at the outset that one assume that your position is completely correct before debate can begin?

This is a strange question. Any rational debate requires assuming this or that for the sake of argument. In order to perform an internal critique of X you have to assume the truth of X and proceed to show its inconsistency or incoherence. If I am going to refute view X, I am going to do so under its own terms; it would be question-begging for me to do so under not-X terms.

Does accepting a false presupposition invalidate logic entirely?

This is likewise a strange question. First, logic cannot be invalidated, since invalidating is a logical function; i.e., how do you invalidate logic without using logic? Second, given the axiomatic nature of presuppositions (in our present context), how do you identify a presupposition as false without begging the question?

Couldn't I leverage presuppositionalism to successfully prove any false statement true?

So this would require the initial condition of the statement being identified as "false," right? But if the statement is identified as false under presupposition X, then how under that same presupposition is the statement to be proven true? That is incoherent.

Wouldn't any presupposition that makes the fewest assumptions... [snip rest]

A presupposition is an assumption. Ergo, you just asked me, "Wouldn't any assumption that makes the fewest assumptions..."

If we were to compare presuppositions, and the conclusions that follow, would it be unreasonable to then ask ourselves which of these conclusions seems to match observed reality to a more accurate degree?

That is precisely the presuppositional method. First we compare John's conclusion P with his presuppositional starting point X and check for coherence and consistency, and then we compare how he thinks and acts (observed reality) with his conclusions and presuppositions and check for consistency there. Where there are inconsistencies there are problems.

So then good is arbitrary?

No, that does not follow. If the nature and character of God is what defines good, then good is not arbitrary for God's nature and character is not.

Never mind the the fact that attempting to argue God into existence is dripping with comedy...

We are not solipsists. We do not argue God into existence.

However, if there were no minds in existence to conceive of the number 4...

Question-begging; it assumes God out of existence. From there being no human minds in existence, it does not follow that there would be no minds at all in existence—unless one has assumed God out of existence from the outset. That was the problem with Dillahunty's attempted rebuttal.

[KichigaiNeko]

[The Grand Nudger]

Attempting to prove the existence of anything by positing an argument is "arguing x into existence" by definition (unless you have evidence?). You have a theory of X, great. Evidence?

I listed the fallacies in the CARM version of TAG (a common version of the argument, which we see often). You've studied this for five years, good, you must have a more refined TAG. Post it.

Regarding P (shortened a long word to avoid typing a billion times):

If I used the wording you began with in our conversation and simply changed God to L. Ron Hubbard you would be similarly unable to pick apart the argument.

"And how do we know that "The Bridge of Fire" is a credible source of information?"- Irrelevant question (your own tactics)

"And when his writings conflict with observed reality?"-Do they? You have misunderstood (your own tactics)

Rinse and repeat for absolutely any faith whatsoever....I could even make a faith up on the spot and leverage such a hefty P.

If you wish to use this argument you must also allow Scientologists to use this argument (and hilariously they do, see they have the internet too). Can both Scientology and Christianity be true? Your premise is in effect "God exists", it is therefore unsurprising that your conclusion is "God exists" It doesn't matter what steps you take in between Ryft, you don't really need any steps in between to be honest. That is the point of my comment about invalidating logic. If we allow arguments to contain fallacy, and if we allow such massive P (pregnant as you would say) any false statement can be proven true (such as a faith that a magical garden gnome just gave me on a magical notebook that I hold in my hands right now). Even worse, I'm sure you would lose your shit if materialists used your exact P and replaced God with Metaphysical Naturalism.

Back to TAG: The explanation of numbers assumes nothing. It merely states that these things are observations that would exist even if there were no transcendent minds. There may be such a mind, but using logical absolutes as proof of such a mind is bad practice for exactly those reasons stated. They do not REQUIRE such a mind. This invalidates the assumption that such a mind is the only explanation for the "preconditions of knowledge". Before you even ask, it isn't incumbent upon me to explain the preconditions of knowledge, I need only show that there is no requirement of God for this premise to be false.

But here I am arguing in the hypothetical, post your TAG. (Like I told you, interested observer..lol)

(Would probably make it's own epic thread if you wanted to start one.)

[Captain Scarlet]

I concede this could be my lack of understanding of the TAG argument wrt logic. I do not grasp what it can really do for the theist.

If it goes through it would mean that in some way logic depends on god and is thus contingent. But to state this appears to be self refuting because it would mean logical truths aren't necessarily true, but are instead arbitrary based on the whimsy of the diety invoked, or they are imposed from an external agency. Then either TAG for logic isn't true because it uses logic which becomes unreliable or it cannot be an argument for the diety being invoked.

The second issue is whether we can ever reliably point to abstract concepts and say they 'exist' at all, at least in the sense we understand existence. Within their own frameworks they 'exist', but outside of those frameworks they cannot be demonstrated. For example numbers exist in the framework of maths, but 'the 6' does not exist outside of this framework.

[The Grand Nudger]

"6" is a description of a thing, not a thing (outside of it's own framework, as you have said).
(because i like "for dummies" series of books)

It just hit me. The thing that always gets my goat about TAG is that is is merely a restatement of the doctrine of biblical innerrancy, which worked until people started having thoughts (as Lewis Black so eloquently put it). It's a bit of a hydra type situation where every head you cut off becomes the meristem of many more. I'm going to have to work more hydra references into my everyday life.

[LastPoet]

No Rhythm, its simply the fact that philosophy outside of the empirical realm is just a mental masturbation technique as some extreme parts of it, i.e. solipsism.

You can argue for years about this, ultimately its a pissing contest. Its all well and good to be a philosopher, but if you produce nothing then you spent your time doing just that: doing nothing. Who will win? Meh, not interested, you both already lost.