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.
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.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
