Even as a deist, when I heard the Transcendental Argument for God (or TAG), I thought it was such crap that it must be a parody (ala Landover Baptist style). It's frankly embarrassing for the human race that people can present such arguments with a straight face and think they're spouting philosophy gold.
The argument is stated is if God were the source of either morality or logic. It relies on "GodWillsIt" to explain what is moral and "GodDidIt" to explain the "laws of logic". Then it goes downhill from there.
One (of many) problems with the line of thinking in the TAG argument is a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question". Here's how this fallacy works:
Step 1: Assume X to be true without any basis
Step 2: Use the assumption of X as "proof" that Y must be true.
Applied to the TAG-morality argument:
1. Without God, there can be no objective standard of morality (assumption)
2. Objective morality exists (assumption)
3. Therefore, God exists. (Fallacious reasoning using a double act of begging the question)
On point #1: How do you figure that? An evil god could exist. And if God does exist and creates a basis for moral judgment, on what basis do we say God's morals are objectively correct? If God creates rules that establish morality, this is not objective by definition. If God determines what is moral through wisdom and judgment, than morality exists outside of God and therefore would continue to exist without God. Either way, the argument fails.*
On point #2: What do you mean by "objective morality"? Does this mean that morality can be measured in quantifiable units like mass, kinetic energy or velocity?
1. Assumption.
2. Assumption. Also using "GodDidIt" to explain reality.
3. Assumption that can be maintained without 1 or 2. Non Sequitur.
4. Conclusion based on fallacious reasoning.
Again, GodDidIt. GodDidIt does nothing to elucidate our understanding of reality any more than GodWillsIt helps us understand what morality is.
There's also some burden of proof shifting here. "The atheistic worldview" doesn't need to "account" for anything. It's the lack of a belief. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer if one doesn't know the answer. And just because the atheist may not know the answer to a question doesn't mean the Christian can simply appeal to ignorance and fill in the gaps with his/her god until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on them, not us.
And just because God exists doesn't mean it's necessarily the Christian god (as deism will attest).
*Footnote: Christians, aware of this dilemma, are usually prepared to respond with the gibberish that God neither determines nor discovers morality but rather the very essence of morality is part of God's nature. Beyond the fact that this argument makes no sense, it's another example of begging the question. The Christians invent a definition (goodness is ingrained in God) to justify an assertion (God is good) and then run in an endless circle (We know that God is good because goodness is ingrained in God which we know because God is good and we know this because goodness is ingrained in God which we know because...).
Bottom line: Don't be intimidated by Christian pseudo-philosophy or be afraid to call it the gibberish that it is.
The argument is stated is if God were the source of either morality or logic. It relies on "GodWillsIt" to explain what is moral and "GodDidIt" to explain the "laws of logic". Then it goes downhill from there.
One (of many) problems with the line of thinking in the TAG argument is a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question". Here's how this fallacy works:
Step 1: Assume X to be true without any basis
Step 2: Use the assumption of X as "proof" that Y must be true.
Applied to the TAG-morality argument:
1. Without God, there can be no objective standard of morality (assumption)
2. Objective morality exists (assumption)
3. Therefore, God exists. (Fallacious reasoning using a double act of begging the question)
On point #1: How do you figure that? An evil god could exist. And if God does exist and creates a basis for moral judgment, on what basis do we say God's morals are objectively correct? If God creates rules that establish morality, this is not objective by definition. If God determines what is moral through wisdom and judgment, than morality exists outside of God and therefore would continue to exist without God. Either way, the argument fails.*
On point #2: What do you mean by "objective morality"? Does this mean that morality can be measured in quantifiable units like mass, kinetic energy or velocity?
Quote:The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
1. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
2. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
3. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
4. They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
1. Assumption.
2. Assumption. Also using "GodDidIt" to explain reality.
3. Assumption that can be maintained without 1 or 2. Non Sequitur.
4. Conclusion based on fallacious reasoning.
Quote:The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
(earlier)
The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God, who is Himself absolute.
Again, GodDidIt. GodDidIt does nothing to elucidate our understanding of reality any more than GodWillsIt helps us understand what morality is.
There's also some burden of proof shifting here. "The atheistic worldview" doesn't need to "account" for anything. It's the lack of a belief. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer if one doesn't know the answer. And just because the atheist may not know the answer to a question doesn't mean the Christian can simply appeal to ignorance and fill in the gaps with his/her god until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on them, not us.
And just because God exists doesn't mean it's necessarily the Christian god (as deism will attest).
*Footnote: Christians, aware of this dilemma, are usually prepared to respond with the gibberish that God neither determines nor discovers morality but rather the very essence of morality is part of God's nature. Beyond the fact that this argument makes no sense, it's another example of begging the question. The Christians invent a definition (goodness is ingrained in God) to justify an assertion (God is good) and then run in an endless circle (We know that God is good because goodness is ingrained in God which we know because God is good and we know this because goodness is ingrained in God which we know because...).
Bottom line: Don't be intimidated by Christian pseudo-philosophy or be afraid to call it the gibberish that it is.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
