Conversion

[Jon Paul]

Arcanus also falsely accused you of using the "ad-hominem" fallacy, however this fallacy only ever applies when you are insulting the person and using this as a disproof of their point, not generally as you did.

In other words, saying "you idiot" (like you did) is an insult, whereas saying "You are an idiot therefore TAG is wrong" (or something to that effect) is a fallacy.

Ad hominem is not only an insult used to disprove a persons argument. It is just as much praising a person to prove his argument. In either case, the fallacy lies in confounding the source of an argument (a person) with the validity of the argument.

Am I wrong in stating that all of these pathetic arguments for the existence of God are built on a foundation of either;

• a) scientifically verifiable premises or
  
• b) baseless and unverifiable assumptions?
  

Scientific investigation is utterly vital to the search for God, otherwise your premises are just baseless assertions (such as "all things that exist have a beginning").

There are arguments that are scientifically verifiable in the sense of being verifiable by empirical and rational inquiry, yes. Scientifically verifiable in the sense of being provable from the premise of naturalism that "God does not exist", certainly not, for that is an a priori exclusion of the investigation of the proposition that he exists.

Besides, if we are to get into the epistemology, which is what you engaged by speaking of verifiability, an externally unverifiable assumption is not the same as a baseless assumption, since an internal knowledge and warrant which is externally unverifiable is quite possible. An example by Plantinga beneath.

7. I was alone in the woods all that afternoon, and I did not steal the letter.

But I do have strong evidence for the denial of (7). For I have the same evidence as everyone else that I was in the chairman's office and took the letter; and this evidence is sufficient to convince my colleagues (who are eminently fairminded and initially well disposed towards me) of my guilt. They are convinced on the basis of what they know that I took the letter; and I know everything they know.

So I take (7) as basic; but I have a substantial reason to believe a defeater of (7). According to Q*, if I am to be rational in this situation, I must have even better reason to believe that this potential defeater is false. Do I? Well, the only reason I have for thinking this potential defeater false is just (7) itself; I don't have any independent reason to think the defeater false. (The warrant I have for (7) is nonpropositional warrant; it is not conferred upon (7) by virtue of my believing that proposition on the basis of some other proposition, for I don't believe (7) on the basis of any other proposition.)

In this situation it is obvious, I take it, that I am perfectly rational in continuing to believe (7) in this basic way. The reason is that in this situation the positive epistemic status or warrant that (7) has for me (by virtue of memory) is greater than that conferred upon its potential defeater by the evidence I share with my colleagues. We might say that (7) itself defeats the potential defeater; no further reason for the denial of this defeater is needed for me to be rational. Suppose we say that in this sort of situation a proposition like (7) is an intrinsic defeater of its potential defeater. When a basic belief p has more by way of warrant than a potential defeater q of p, then p is an intrinsic defeater of q-an intrinsic defeater-defeater, we might say. (A belief r is an extrinsic defeater-defeater if it defeats a defeater q of a belief p distinct from r.)

If TAG is arguing that God's absolute nature (take note) is the source of morals [and also that it has to presuppose the Christian worldview which states quite clearly that God created the universe and everything in it] (...) -> (your conclusion) then TAG is equally clearly stating that God created morality.

The TAG states clearly that Gods absolute nature which is uncreated and transcendent is the source of the moral and logical order of the universe.

So how did you conclude that it states that the moral and logical order is created? It affirms the opposite, that it is part of Gods absolute, transcendent and uncreated nature, and as a result is imposed on his Creation.