Conversion

[Kyuuketsuki]

The TAG argument fails because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture) ...

What the hell? The TAG does not even deal with morality. How can it "fail" at something it was not even addressing in the first place? The TAG addresses metaethics (the ground of moral order), not ethics (values and morals).

According to Wikipedia (not my favourite resource but it'll do for the moment), "The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately (though unwittingly) presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals."

So backatcha!

... plus you have to identify and evidentially support your ultimate moral arbiter BEFORE you can claim it is one, so have fun with that.

And here is the standard question-begging mess I was referring to. If you want to simply assume the truth of your view, knock yourself out. But it is not going to be convincing to anyone except the already convinced, which is not terribly impressive. Like I said, a compelling refutation of TAG would have to not engage in fallacious tactics.

First of all do you really think I give a toss whether I impress a wingnut like you and secondly, curiously, it's YOU & YOURS that are the ones who believe in fairy tale gods with diddly squat validatable evidence to support it so again backatcha!

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!

Rrrright. Just like evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes. Good job, Kirk Cameron—err, I mean Kyuuketsuki. I doubt you could have described the TAG any more erroneously if you tried. Well... no, I take that back. You probably could get it even more wrong. (And I am going to cite you in a blog post, linked to your post, of course, in a new series I am going to develop called Atheists Say The Darndest Things.)

Firstly evolution DOES NOT teach that humans evolved from apes, it teaches that humans ARE apes and that all 5 species of great ape (of which humans are one) had a common ancestor euphemistically called a manape. Go ahead and say what you will but (just trust me on this) ... you theists can twist anything you want because e you start from the claim/assumption that your god exists and massage all the evidence and logic so that you end up concluding that that god does indeed exist ... it's called teleology and it is neither big nor clever.

Kyu