Conversion

[Eilonnwy]

A self-consistent and coherent refutation of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) which does not engage in fallacious tactics (e.g., question-begging) would be a substantial start. I have observed numerous attempts at refuting it, including Michael Martin's TANG, but they have all demonstrably violated logical reasoning at some point.

The TAG argument fails because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture) plus you have to identify and evidentially support your ultimate moral arbiter BEFORE you can claim it is one so have fun with that. Ultimately the TAG argument is based on circular reasoning i.e. that morality, reason and so on mean god exists and they exist because god created them, which proves god exists and around we go again ad nauseum .. in short, it's bollocks!

Kyu

Indeed. Plus there was an in depth debate about TAG on the Atheist Experience and I think Matt did an excellent job of refuting it.

As for what would make me believe in God? Testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method.

[Rhizomorph13]

Eilonnwy,

Can you imagine what form that evidence would be? Pure speculation welcome. What would be the nature of that evidence? For example if there was video of a man praying and then fire came down from the sky and burned up his offering the video would come into question. Or what if you were there? That would probably cinch it for me but then again, I have seen some magnificent magic acts.

Rhizo

[binny]

You know my nephew said to me recently that I must not have had a traumatic enough experience in my life to make me 'turn' to god. At the time I couldn't think of any. After thinking about that for a while I think there have been a few traumatic experiences in my life that could have made me want to turn to god, one the death of my father.....nope, didn't turn to god for that. My son being diagnosed in the autism spectrum......nope, no god there either. There were also any teenage traumas and broken love affairs.....those didn't do it either. I chalk it all up to life. I guess what would make me 'believe' would be concrete proof. I would actually have to see god. Well maybe I'll find out when I'm dead. I'll let you know then.

[Eilonnwy]

Eilonnwy,

Can you imagine what form that evidence would be? Pure speculation welcome. What would be the nature of that evidence? For example if there was video of a man praying and then fire came down from the sky and burned up his offering the video would come into question. Or what if you were there? That would probably cinch it for me but then again, I have seen some magnificent magic acts.

Rhizo

It comes down to forming a hypothesis and testing it again and again to get repeatable results. There are certain qualities God is claimed to have, such as intercessory prayer which failed it's experiment with teh Templeton foundation.

Also, believing and worshiping are two different things. If God was absolutely proven, he'd have a lot to answer for since if he is in fact the god of the bible, he's an immoral bastard.

[fr0d0]

If God is defined as not provable (as I know he is), and the logic for such proof reasoning fails so very badly it clangs like a very big gong, such answers are IMO unbelievably naive (no bad thing).

[Ryft]

The TAG argument fails because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture) ...

What the hell? The TAG does not even deal with morality. How can it "fail" at something it was not even addressing in the first place? The TAG addresses metaethics (the ground of moral order), not ethics (values and morals).

... plus you have to identify and evidentially support your ultimate moral arbiter BEFORE you can claim it is one, so have fun with that.

And here is the standard question-begging mess I was referring to. If you want to simply assume the truth of your view, knock yourself out. But it is not going to be convincing to anyone except the already convinced, which is not terribly impressive. Like I said, a compelling refutation of TAG would have to not engage in fallacious tactics.

Ultimately the TAG argument is based on circular reasoning; i.e., that morality, reason and so on mean god exists and they exist because god created them, which proves god exists and around we go again ad nauseum ... in short, it's bollocks!

Rrrright. Just like evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes. Good job, Kirk Cameron—err, I mean Kyuuketsuki. I doubt you could have described the TAG any more erroneously if you tried. Well... no, I take that back. You probably could get it even more wrong. (And I am going to cite you in a blog post, linked to your post, of course, in a new series I am going to develop called Atheists Say The Darndest Things.)

[Kyuuketsuki]

The TAG argument fails because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture) ...

What the hell? The TAG does not even deal with morality. How can it "fail" at something it was not even addressing in the first place? The TAG addresses metaethics (the ground of moral order), not ethics (values and morals).

According to Wikipedia (not my favourite resource but it'll do for the moment), "The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately (though unwittingly) presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals."

So backatcha!

... plus you have to identify and evidentially support your ultimate moral arbiter BEFORE you can claim it is one, so have fun with that.

And here is the standard question-begging mess I was referring to. If you want to simply assume the truth of your view, knock yourself out. But it is not going to be convincing to anyone except the already convinced, which is not terribly impressive. Like I said, a compelling refutation of TAG would have to not engage in fallacious tactics.

First of all do you really think I give a toss whether I impress a wingnut like you and secondly, curiously, it's YOU & YOURS that are the ones who believe in fairy tale gods with diddly squat validatable evidence to support it so again backatcha!

Ultimately the TAG argument is based on circular reasoning; i.e., that morality, reason and so on mean god exists and they exist because god created them, which proves god exists and around we go again ad nauseum ... in short, it's bollocks!

Rrrright. Just like evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes. Good job, Kirk Cameron—err, I mean Kyuuketsuki. I doubt you could have described the TAG any more erroneously if you tried. Well... no, I take that back. You probably could get it even more wrong. (And I am going to cite you in a blog post, linked to your post, of course, in a new series I am going to develop called Atheists Say The Darndest Things.)

Firstly evolution DOES NOT teach that humans evolved from apes, it teaches that humans ARE apes and that all 5 species of great ape (of which humans are one) had a common ancestor euphemistically called a manape. Go ahead and say what you will but (just trust me on this) ... you theists can twist anything you want because e you start from the claim/assumption that your god exists and massage all the evidence and logic so that you end up concluding that that god does indeed exist ... it's called teleology and it is neither big nor clever.

Kyu

[Ryft]

[Wikipedia points out that the TAG] "is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately ... presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals."

So backatcha!

Seriously? Although I fear it might sail right over your head, the highlighted parts underscore that your attempted rebuttal in fact upheld my point. "The TAG does not even deal with morality," as I had said and this Wikipedia article confirms (as far as it can confirm anything), in the sense that it does not dictate what is moral and what is not, in precisely the same way that it does not set out what is science nor what is logic. The TAG addresses the ground or "the source of" these things, the "ultimate" presuppositions which provide the necessary preconditions for their intelligible coherence. Or, as I had said, "the ground of moral order" (a priori; metaethics) as opposed to values and morals (a posteriori; ethics).

Your criticism failed, as did your rebuttal here. Nicely done. It is rather entertaining to watch people criticize something they are ignorant about. As Kirk Cameron is to evolution, so you are to the TAG (a comparison my previous post made which did sail right over your head).

First of all, do you really think I give a toss whether I impress a wingnut like you?

Unless you can describe the epistemic virtues of "convincing the already convinced," the point was that it doesn't impress anyone—which happens to include me, yes. Perhaps you don't care that some effort of yours fails to impress anyone, but your apathy is every bit as irrelevant as your estimation of my character. Your commitment to fallacies of irrelevance, on the other hand, is a marvel to behold.

Firstly, evolution DOES NOT teach that humans evolved from apes ...

Yeahhhh... that was sort of my whole point, Kyuuketsuki. Way to miss the reference. As Kirk Cameron is to evolution, so you are to the TAG. But as blissfully ignorant about evolution as he is, perhaps you are likewise as blissful in your ignorance about the TAG.

As Esther Adney once said, "Stupidity should hurt."

You theists ... start from the claim/assumption that your God exists and massage all the evidence and logic so that you end up concluding that that God does indeed exist ...

With all the demonstrations of logical fallacies Kyuuketsuki provides, the members of these forums should be very familiar with them. It is a self-sacrificing service he provides. (Note: neither evidentialist nor presuppositionalist arguments take that form. No theistic argument whatsoever takes the form of "God, therefore God." Having said that, it is very probable that Kyuuketsuki will respond to it with additional self-sacrificing demonstrations of logical fallacies.)

[Kyuuketsuki]

[Wikipedia points out that the TAG] "is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately ... presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals." So backatcha!

Seriously? Although I fear it might sail right over your head, the highlighted parts underscore that your attempted rebuttal in fact upheld my point. "The TAG does not even deal with morality," as I had said and this Wikipedia article confirms (as far as it can confirm anything), in the sense that it does not dictate what is moral and what is not, in precisely the same way that it does not set out what is science nor what is logic. The TAG addresses the ground or "the source of" these things, the "ultimate" presuppositions which provide the necessary preconditions for their intelligible coherence. Or, as I had said, "the ground of moral order" (a priori; metaethics) as opposed to values and morals (a posteriori; ethics).

I didn't say it dictated morality I said it (your cartoon caricature god) is the source of morality ... if you're going to criticise my argument then at least try and criticise what I said and not what you'd like to think I said!

Your criticism failed, as did your rebuttal here. Nicely done. It is rather entertaining to watch people criticize something they are ignorant about. As Kirk Cameron is to evolution, so you are to the TAG (a comparison my previous post made which did sail right over your head).

No it didn't and PLEASE stop likening me to Kirk Cameron ... he's a fundamentalist! How would you like it if I insisted you were like Ayatollah Khomeini (and have done in this instance)? It's disingenuous!

First of all, do you really think I give a toss whether I impress a wingnut like you?

Unless you can describe the epistemic virtues of "convincing the already convinced," the point was that it doesn't impress anyone—which happens to include me, yes. Perhaps you don't care that some effort of yours fails to impress anyone, but your apathy is every bit as irrelevant as your estimation of my character. Your commitment to fallacies of irrelevance, on the other hand, is a marvel to behold.

Is any of that in any way relevant beyond being a highly codified insult?

Firstly, evolution DOES NOT teach that humans evolved from apes ...

Yeahhhh... that was sort of my whole point, Kyuuketsuki. Way to miss the reference. As Kirk Cameron is to evolution, so you are to the TAG. But as blissfully ignorant about evolution as he is, perhaps you are likewise as blissful in your ignorance about the TAG.

If you were being facetious then you should have made it clear ... that's what emoticons are for (only idiots don't know that!).

As Esther Adney once said, "Stupidity should hurt."

Fuck you Khomeini!

You theists ... start from the claim/assumption that your God exists and massage all the evidence and logic so that you end up concluding that that God does indeed exist ...

With all the demonstrations of logical fallacies Kyuuketsuki provides, the members of these forums should be very familiar with them. It is a self-sacrificing service he provides. (Note: neither evidentialist nor presuppositionalist arguments take that form. No theistic argument whatsoever takes the form of "God, therefore God." Having said that, it is very probable that Kyuuketsuki will respond to it with additional self-sacrificing demonstrations of logical fallacies.)

Come on then brainache ... which f***ing logical fallacies have I used? Be precise, link to it, explain it and retract it if you are wrong!

Kyu

[Ryft]

I didn't say [the TAG] dictated morality. I said it (your cartoon caricature god) is the source of morality.

What you said is that the TAG fails "because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture)" [source]. You could have meant one of two things, and neither one of them succeed as a rebuttal. On the one hand, you could have meant that what people consider 'moral' varies across cultures; that refers to ethics, which the TAG does not even address (q.v. it addresses the ground of moral order, not what is or isn't moral). Fallacy? "Straw Man," attacking a position different from the one actually held.

On the other hand, you could have meant that what people consider "the ground of moral order" varies across cultures (belief Y); that is a completely irrelevant when it comes to criticism of the TAG (belief X). Fallacy? "Red Herring," attempting to divert the argument (e.g., pointing to the fact that some people believe Y has absolutely no bearing on the merits of belief X).

PLEASE stop likening me to Kirk Cameron ...

As long as you continue to do what he does, I'll compare the similarity. (And if you think the similarity was "fundamentalism" then it still went over your head.)

Is any of that in any way relevant, beyond being a highly codified insult?

Does pointing out (i) the utter irrelevance of your apathy with respect to the merits of my argument (ii) and the persistence of your fallacies have bearing on the matter at hand? Yes, certainly. Pointing out bankrupt responses is always relevant. And if having someone point out every irrelevancy you make is insulting to you, then stop making them.

If you were being facetious then you should have made it clear.

When I am being facetious, I usually attempt to make it clear. However, in this case I was not being facetious. I was quite serious.

Come on then brainache ... which f***ing logical fallacies have I used? Be precise, link to it, explain it. And retract it if you are wrong!

I always identify them and explain them. But with you I will address them by their name rather than by their nature. (I will not link to them, however, as I have to assume you know how to look things up on the internet on your own.)