Conversion

[Tiberius]

All right, I see where your argument is coming from. However, this is faulty reasoning. Just because the TAG presupposes the God who creates, it does not follow from this that God also created morality. Not everything is a product of God's creative power; some things are a product of his divine nature, such as moral order. The idea that moral order is a product of God's creative power is what the Divine Command Theory (DCT) argues for, which is a rather different beast. The TAG argues for the Christian position that moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. If moral order is grounded in the very nature of God, then it is eternal in as much as God is—not a contingent thing God created at some point, such as found in the DCT.

I'm not saying that at all. What I am arguing is that there is no difference between saying "God created morality" and "Morality is a product of God's divine nature". Both are a product of an attribute of God; all you are doing is confusing the argument. I could easily say instead of "God created morality", that "Morality is a product of God's creative powers" - it has the same meaning. Thomas Aquinas argued that "God commands things that are good because God himself is good, and a good God can only give good commands". The problem with this is that the only morality that you can say is not "created" by God is God's own morality. Morality itself for humans is the sum of all the commands of God, and is therefore a creation of God. It is clear that the morality by which God works by is not the same as the morality by which we work by, because we can do the exact opposite of God's commands (and thereby do something "bad").

First, the phrase "baseless assumption" here is a redundancy trying to act like a pejorative. The fact of the matter is, at this level of discourse assumptions are baseless by definition, in virtue of being axioms; i.e., they form a comprehensive foundational perspective or starting point in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. In the final analysis, all arguments are ultimately baseless in this sense, for they all begin with assumptions that by their very nature cannot be proven.

I disagree. Science is based on the assumption that nature is ordered and that by observing it we can learn things from it. This assumption is hardly baseless, since it is based upon our observation of the natural world. We soon realised that there were certain laws that nature abides by (when you drop something, it always falls down, etc) and that these laws did not appear to change. It is plainly obvious that if we lacked this base from which science assumes, it would not work (since every experiment would get a different outcome). It is still an assumption however, because it is not proven.

Second, just because a structure is built upon assumptions that cannot be proven that does not, in itself, cut the rug out from underneath it; otherwise every structure built upon assumptions of this nature must be discarded—lest one commits the Special Pleading fallacy. And before anyone is too quick to find that agreeable, remember that a structure known as 'science' is itself founded upon a number of assumptions that cannot be proven (e.g., that the world is real, that the laws of nature are uniform, that inductive inference works, etc.). As Josh Witten at ScientificBlogging.com succinctly framed the matter, "The scientific method is a form of logical argument [formalized system of inquiry]. All logical arguments are based upon assumptions. The argument proceeding from those assumptions cannot be used to prove those assumptions."

Indeed, but the point is, if you assume something in an argument, the conclusion of the argument cannot be "well, the assumption was correct because everything works out". To take science as an example again, we cannot prove that nature is ordered (the assumption of science) because at the end of the day, we *could* be in some cosmic lab where a superbeing is just changing the results of our tests to make them look ordered.

(I just noticed you made the same argument above, but I like my example )

I'm in full agreement, but the fact is that TAG has a Christian assumption at the beginning, and claims to be able to prove a Christian God. I see this as a fallacy since the entire assumption was one of Christianity to begin with, and to prove the Christian God is to prove the Christian assumption (and as we've said, you cannot do that). This is why I object the TAG argument when you go around claiming it proves the existence of a specific God. It doesn't.

Third, the reason we do not discard science and its unprovable assumptions is because those assumptions work, with no substantive violations. And it provides for the intelligibility of our experience of natural phenomenon. That is where it derives its strength from. The same principle applies to the Christian theory of metaethics and its TAG: it works, supplying the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility of our experience of morality, and suffers from no substantive violations. Moreover, it is the only one that does, for every other theory proposed ends up failing, either intrinsically or extrinsically (fails to produce a morality consistent with our experience). That is where it derives its strength from.

The problem I come across with this one is that morality is observably not static. If morality were, you would have an argument that morality is caused by something like a transcendental God, but it isn't. By having a non-static morality, you can *claim* that God's morality is static and humans are only sinning, but you have no *proof* that our morality is anything other than a developed (and indeed, developing) biological function. This is one of the most vivid problems with TAG; that it says it can explain morality and thereby prove God, but it cannot because there are other valid explanations.

I know, I know—you do not agree, nor does basically anyone else here. But it can be verified from numerous points throughout this message board that no one here has any substantial experience with the TAG, evidenced most clearly by the crude caricatures or outright misrepresentations of it. So it is hardly surprising that people will not agree with an argument they are fundamentally unfamiliar with.

Well perhaps it would be advisable, before you continue, to outline TAG (as you see it), with a full explanation. It might be advisable to put your explanation on the Wikipedia article, to help future generations of atheists to "find" God.

So what you are saying is: (1) Theory X fails as an explanation by the mere existence of a competing Theory Y; (2) Any argument that is based on mere assumptions is not proof of anything. I have to wonder if you are aware of the extraordinary ramifications that such a stance produces, far beyond its self-stultifying consequences. Given the level of intellect you routinely exhibit at this site and your blog, I have to believe you are aware and that this was just a sloppy response to Jon Paul.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it fails as a *proof* because of the existence of other expanations. TAG is a proof (at least the philosophical websites & wikipedia say so, but apparently they are shite according to you) and as such, should be able to counter (successfully) any other claims of morality / knowledge / logic existing through any other means. These explanations exist, and the different between them and TAG (and the reason why they don't cause any "outcry") is because they are not presented as proofs, they are presented as explanations.

So, if TAG is presented as a proof, as the websites out there present it, it is wrong. It is no more a proof than the natural explanations as to why we have a sense of morality, sense of logic, sense of knowledge.

As for the assumptions issue, I stand by it. We've already agreed that assumptions cannot be proven by the conclusion of the argument, so these assumptions are unproven. Given that these assumptions are the prerequisites for the conclusion being valid, if we were to demonstrate how the assumption was wrong, the entire conclusion would be wrong. Ergo, there is no proof. A proof by definition cannot be disproven, and any "proof" based on assumptions can be disproven if the assumptions are disproven.

Again, this is another attack on TAG as a proof. You can have it as a *possible* explanation, but not a proof.

Um... just wow. No, that is not the TAG. It does not even qualify as a caricature thereof. Arcanus sticks by that? Puhleeze.

Well as I suggested before, please explain it.

The TAG argues that logic, knowledge, and morality cannot be explained without God. Your rebuttal against the TAG is, "Yes they can." Well for crying out loud, if all it takes to refute an argument is to beg the question, critical thinkers have really been wasting their time, haven't they?

Either that, or proving the failure of the TAG requires more than begging the question.

My rebuttal of TAG is indeed "yes they can", and each have natural explanations. Morality has an evolutionary history, and scientists think it evolved from our instinct to help us survive as societies. Logica equally has an evolutionary history, being important for our brains to develop (our brains are natural computers and as such have "logic circuits" in neurons). Our perception of logic is a conscious representation of the brain's computations. By knowledge itself, I assume you mean actual existence of knowledge rather than our ability to "know", and this I would argue is simply our perception of reality (which we will assume is real ). Knowledge itself is a human concept to relate to the natural world.

You are familiar with Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles, yes? If Deity X (DX) has all the attributes of the Christian God (CG), then DX is CG (q.v. if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y). In order for DX to not be CG, it must have at least one attribute that is different from CG (q.v. a putative property which distinguishes them). Furthermore, as indicated earlier, making a claim is very easy to do. You can say moral order is grounded in noodly fields of spaghetti or whatever else tickles your fancy, but then comes the matter of whether or not it actually works.

Not true I'm afraid. You switch arguments nicely in the middle (and very well; I almost didn't notice!). You first say that if DX has all the attributes of CG, DX = CG (which is wrong). You then say, if DX and CG have all the same properties, they are equal. This is correct, but entirely different to the first statement, and indeed entirely different to my point.

Consider:

Box X has a hairbrush, a ball, and a playstation 3.
Box Y has a hairbrush, and a ball.

X has all the attributes of Y, but it is not equal to Y, because X has an extra attribute. Your first argument compared one god to another, whereas the second (and valid) argument compared both gods to each other.

A god can have all the attributes of the Christian God, and then go further (as the mighty FSM does). Obvious joking aside, my point still stands; your logic concerning indiscernibles only works when both objects are compared to one another and both have the same attributes. However I never said this.

Btw, nice to have you back