Conversion

[Jon Paul]

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.

The TAG does not state that God created morality. You have no reason to be confused about it; you just stated that TAG did state this, and now you are saying vaguely that "either it did, or it didn't, in either case, it's invalid because it's not an evidential argument."

But that was the case from the beginning. The argument could not be an evidential argument, because it starts by presuming a worldview of Christian orthodoxy, in the sense of foundational belief, and compares it to a worldview of atheism, which does not affirm a foundational belief in Christian orthodoxy. That does not "null" the argument, it means the argument is analytic, not evidential. That an argument is analytic, not evidential, does not null an argument, anymore than it nulls an argument that it is evidential, not analytic. And if it did, you would have provide rational reasons to say that it does, beyond the mere reassertion that "it does".

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.

That is a red herring/straw man, since those are not the worldviews the argument does analyse, and certainly not real worldviews to begin with. You are using this as an excuse to ignore the analysis of the argument of the viewpoints it does analyse, since any other viewpoints are irrelevant to the analytic conclusions about the epistemic structures that it actually does analyse.

(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.

The argument is rather that if the logical order of the universe doesn't transcend human minds, and it is not an objective conceptual reality independent of human minds, then it is not possible to say that it does not, and perfectly reasonable to say that it does, since to say the opposite would be invoking the law of contradiction which is self-refuting after the fact of the objective non-reality of this law.

[Rhizomorph13]

JP,

So I have to have an Orthodox Christian worldview to accept the TAG? Then I wouldn't need the TAG to support my belief because I would already have it?

Circular argument is circular.

Rhizo

[Jon Paul]

So I have to have an Orthodox Christian worldview to accept the TAG? Then I wouldn't need the TAG to support my belief because I would already have it?

It is first after the fundamental correctness of TAGs analytical conclusion is etablished, that the fundamental incoherence of the epistemic structure of an atheist worldview is etablished, and that the necessity for the presupposition of the Christian worldview accordingly so established. It is not known to be necessary to be taken to be true prior to or outside of the fact that it is established to be the case, upon the epistemic analysis. And first when such is known and established, the end of the argument is achieved. So no, it isn't circular.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Jon Paul:
The TAG states clearly that Gods absolute nature which is uncreated and transcendent is the source of the moral and logical order of the universe.

NOTE: TAG Argument says God is source of morality

Kyu:
Yet curiously Arcanus argues the exact opposite! I do wish you wingnuts would fucking agree on things

NOTE: Kyu observes Arcanus says the opposite.

Jon Paul:
No, he argued the same (as far as I have read)

NOTE: Jon Paul claims they are saying the same thing.

Kyu:
Read it and weep Muppet, "The TAG does not argue that God created morality." (Arcanus)

NOTE: Kyu posts Arcanus quote clearly demonstrating that he (Arcanus) says the TAG argument does not argue God created morality.

Jon Paul:
Did you even read the post you quoted? I said the exact same thing:[/b]

NOTE: WTF?

Are you fucking blind? Arcanus explicitly said the TAG argument DOES NOT say God created morality, you explicitly said that TAG DOES say God created morality and now you're claiming you are saying the same and attempting to be cynical about my ability to read posts?

I can only see 3 possibilities:[/b]

• You're mistaken
  
• You're stupid
  
• You're a liar!

Which is it?

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

Are you fucking blind? Arcanus explicitly said the TAG argument DOES NOT say God created morality, you explicitly said that TAG DOES say God created morality

I never said that God "created" the logical and moral order of the universe. I said that his uncreated, absolute nature is the source of the logical and moral order of the universe. It is the same order which applies in the universe which is implicit in Gods uncreated being, so it could not be created.

[Tiberius]

The TAG does not state that God created morality. You have no reason to be confused about it; you just stated that TAG did state this, and now you are saying vaguely that "either it did, or it didn't, in either case, it's invalid because it's not an evidential argument."

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. You said it wasn't, but that morality was some kind of transcendent thing of God. I pointed out that either way, these things are not provable and are mere assumptions, yet the argument tries to prove that without God, none of these things could exist.

It's making an assumption and then trying to say that the assumption is true without giving any argument to back it up.

But that was the case from the beginning. The argument could not be an evidential argument, because it starts by presuming a worldview of Christian orthodoxy, in the sense of foundational belief, and compares it to a worldview of atheism, which does not affirm a foundational belief in Christian orthodoxy. That does not "null" the argument, it means the argument is analytic, not evidential. That an argument is analytic, not evidential, does not null an argument, anymore than it nulls an argument that it is evidential, not analytic. And if it did, you would have provide rational reasons to say that it does, beyond the mere reassertion that "it does".

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?

That is a red herring/straw man, since those are not the worldviews the argument does analyse, and certainly not real worldviews to begin with. You are using this as an excuse to ignore the analysis of the argument of the viewpoints it does analyse, since any other viewpoints are irrelevant to the analytic conclusions about the epistemic structures that it actually does analyse.

No, it's a comparison. Your argument states that God is the source of morality without giving evidence or even any reasoning to back the claim up. My point was that the same argument could be made by simply substituting FSMism (which could arguably be a worldview btw) or Islam, or Hinduism. What I fail to see is why the argument concludes a Christian God over any other form, when all it does it make assumptions.

The argument is rather that if the logical order of the universe doesn't transcend human minds, and it is not an objective conceptual reality independent of human minds, then it is not possible to say that it does not, and perfectly reasonable to say that it does, since to say the opposite would be invoking the law of contradiction which is self-refuting after the fact of the objective non-reality of this law.

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".

[Kyuuketsuki]

Are you fucking blind? Arcanus explicitly said the TAG argument DOES NOT say God created morality, you explicitly said that TAG DOES say God created morality

I never said that God "created" the logical and moral order of the universe. I said that his uncreated, absolute nature is the source of the logical and moral order of the universe. It is the same order which applies in the universe which is implicit in Gods uncreated being, so it could not be created.

To say that your god is "is the source of the moral and logical order of the universe" means you are claiming it is the creator of those things you disingenuous [expletive deleted]!

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

To say that your god is "is the source of the moral and logical order of the universe" means you are claiming it is the creator of those things you disingenuous [expletive deleted]!

No, that is an equivocation on your part which is invalid. It would be only created if God was the creator of the logical and moral order of his uncreated nature, but that is clearly not what I am claiming, and that would be a self-contradiction.

[Kyuuketsuki]

To say that your god is "is the source of the moral and logical order of the universe" means you are claiming it is the creator of those things you disingenuous [expletive deleted]!

No, that is an equivocation on your part which is invalid. It would be only created if God was the creator of the logical and moral order of his uncreated nature, but that is clearly not what I am claiming, and that would be a self-contradiction.

You said your god was the source of moral order in the universe that means it created, the source, the creator ... it means the same thing in this context. Arcanus said that was not so so you are a lying fuck!

Kyu

[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.