Conversion

[Jon Paul]

Or an invalid equivocation of terms on your part.

I have not equivocated created with uncreated. You are welcome to address a "created logical order" version of TAG, but it is not the real TAG you would be addressing then.

Yet morality and logic can be explained without a God (as can knowledge), so it ultimately fails to prove anything.

The argument does not attempt to "explain it", in the sense of explaining how humans discovered or developed awareness of moral or logical principles, which is not even the concern of the argument. The concern of the argument is the origin of the conceptual reality of the logical order in the universe to begin with, as it actually exists regardless of the human awareness or limits of human awareness about it.

How exactly is the Islamic God any different? It is both transcendent, omniscience, etc.

You proposed the FSM, not the Islamic God.

The Islamic concept of God is a much more relevant example, because it to a large extent builds on the biblical doctrine of God, as is evident in the Quran (a book which is written a half millenium after the Gospel and a full after the OT) and it's recognition of the Bible and Gospel which the Quran itself calls "the inspired word of God", clearly indicating together with the many references and loans from the Bible that it's authors had extensive knowledge of the bible. All that it does affirm which is relevant to the TAG is taken from the biblical doctrine of God itself. In other words, the Islamic example is relevant insofar as it conforms to the biblical doctrine of God. But the partial perversion of Islamic doctrine, such as the capriciousness of the Islamic doctrine of God makes it doctrinally insufficient when it comes to immutability and omniscience.

What if I were to dream up a certain God that had all the attributes of the Christian God without being the Christian God (i.e. not Yahweh). Surely in that case the TAG argument could apply there as well?

That is irrelevant to the validity of the Christian worldview. You are taking that knowledge from the Christian and biblical doctrine of God, and even in it's pure doctrinal form, by it's mere conformity to the Christian doctrine of God, it is only a confirmation of the Christian worldview. Whether you actually call it "the Christian God" or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is the doctrinally biblical content of it.

---

I am curious to know of such emprical evidnece for God, JP. Not that I remotely believe you have any, so rather - I'm curious to know what you believe to be evidence, but almost certainly isn't from my perspective, I'd be more likely to be hallucinating false evidence (from what I believe to be true so far) - so I'd be absolutely astonished if you somehow produced some. I don't consider it to be impossible, but that's about it.

My argument from potentiality/actuality for Gods existence in my thread is an argument which depends on empirical knowledge after the effect.