Conversion

[Eilonnwy]

A self-consistent and coherent refutation of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) which does not engage in fallacious tactics (e.g., question-begging) would be a substantial start. I have observed numerous attempts at refuting it, including Michael Martin's TANG, but they have all demonstrably violated logical reasoning at some point.

The TAG argument fails because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture) plus you have to identify and evidentially support your ultimate moral arbiter BEFORE you can claim it is one so have fun with that. Ultimately the TAG argument is based on circular reasoning i.e. that morality, reason and so on mean god exists and they exist because god created them, which proves god exists and around we go again ad nauseum .. in short, it's bollocks!

Kyu

Indeed. Plus there was an in depth debate about TAG on the Atheist Experience and I think Matt did an excellent job of refuting it.

As for what would make me believe in God? Testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method.