Conversion

[Jon Paul]

The only reason I was confused was because to me saying God is the "source" of morality (which the argument does) is a statement of creation.

No, it is not a statement of creation. That is an invalid equivocation of terms on your part.

Pray tell me, what then is the point of this argument? If it does nothing to prove or support the existence of God, and is merely analytical, why is it so important?

It does something to prove the existence of God, but not by evaluating the extrinsic evidence for Gods existence (e.g. by inferring Gods existence from another belief, which would make it evidential). Rather, it does something to prove it by analysing the intrinsic logical coherence (regardless of extrinsic evidence) of the epistemic structure of Christianity versus atheism.

What I fail to see is why the argument concludes a Christian God over any other form, when all it does it make assumptions.

A God who is not consistent with the biblical doctrine of God as a transcendent, omniscient, immutable intellectual being would not lead to the logical coherence that the TAG concludes that the Christian worldview has.

It is worthless to compare FSM to a self-existent transcendent God. FSM is composed of matter, and is flying through space in time; it is obviously an immanental spatiotemporal and material being, which is ontologically differentiated from a transcendent, self-existent, nonspatial, nontemporal, immaterial, omnipresent, eternal God. FSM doesn't live up to the definition of God as creator of all things, and therefore transcendent to all things, and therefore immaterial, nonspatial and nontemporal, and therefore not flying nor made of spaghetti.

Aren't those two requirements both assumptions though? Thus all you have done is focus on one possible scenario and ignore the others. I still don't see how you can get from that kind of argument to "God exists", let alone "God exists and he is Yahweh".

YHWH is one of the names for God, which refers to God's transcendence and self-existence; ehyeh asher ehyeh, I am that I am, I shall be that I shall be, etc. It is implicit in the notion of a self-existent transcendent and necessary being.

---

it means the same thing in this context.

That is your equivocation, but it is not consistent with the orthodox Christian definition of creation. God is not created; and the TAG exactly states that the moral and logical order in the universe transcends the universe, and is uncreated, a part of Gods uncreated being wholly apart from the universe.

The sense in which God is the source of the logical order of the universe is the ontological sense (that he imposes the order of His being on his Creation, the universe), not in the sense that he creates it ex nihilo (since it already exists in his divine nature), which is the Christian definition of creation.