Conversion

[Tiberius]

Saying that something is a part of Gods nature, apart from what he does, is not the same as saying that something is a result of Gods external operation and action. In that case, saying that God is good (a predication of his nature) would be the same kind of statement as saying that God created Saturn, which is a predication of his action in a potentiality outside of his own nature, not a predication of his nature independently of that action.

Now I'm confused. Either the TAG states that God created morality (and is thereby nulled by the fact that there are other explanations, and the argument is based on mere assumption (and is not a proof). Or TAG states that morality is because of God (it is transcendent or whatever), which is again nulled by the same fact and is still based on assumption.

Either way, TAG isn't a proof of anything. One could just as easily say that the FSM or Richard Dawkins is responsible for logic / morality.

As for the argument itself:

(1) Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality)
(2) If there is no god, knowledge is not posssible
(3) Therefore god

I agree with statement (1), but (2) is a non-sequitur. It is an assumption and simply does not follow through. In fact I'm a little bit disappointed by this argument, given that Arcanus sticks by it so strongly. The argument itself gives nothing to explain (2), it just states it.