anyone ever heard of the Transcendental Argument? (atheist, Christian, beliefs)

[agnostic soldier]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

For the existence of God?

I have yet to see a solid refutation of it. Most people give a weak, half-hearted lame response....but I have yet to see a really good one.


The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

Got to the link above to get a detailed view of it, but in a nutshell:

"Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God. "

There's no such thing as logical absolutes because there are no absolute truths. Truth is dependent on observation of the material world, through experimentation. Someone cannot be absolutely certain that x truth claim will always be true throughout time. Theories and laws are constantly revised or changed. Case and point, people used to think the earth was the center of the universe until Galileo helped to prove Copernicus' theory of the sun being the center the center. Before Galileo, people believed that the earth was the center, always and all the time. If something is absolutely true everywhere all the time then it would still be true that the earth is the center of the universe, although through further experimentation that theory was disproved. Something may be thought of as being true because there is evidence to support it or not true because there is no evidence to support it, although someday that claim may be disproven while a claim that something was thought to not be true because there was no evidence to support may be found that there is evidence for that claim. While claims all have certain degrees of truth, claims that have mounds of evidence to support them, but sometime could be proven not to be true. for example it is statistically improbable that evolution will be disproven given how long its stood under skeptical scrutiny and still been proven to be true, only a single test could falsify its truth.

[Deb in VA]

There's no such thing as logical absolutes because there are no absolute truths.

Hmm, this looks like an absolute truth to me....

[cleatis]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

For the existence of God?

I have yet to see a solid refutation of it. Most people give a weak, half-hearted lame response....but I have yet to see a really good one.


The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

Got to the link above to get a detailed view of it, but in a nutshell:

"Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God. "

I didn't get the chance to read the link yet, but I can say from this: how is it so logical to assume that this is god. I mean there is some good evidence that there is something like this, but it is a real jump to conclusions to assume it's the same guy that sees all the nasty stuff we do in the shower, or the same guy that is all knowing yet surprised to see us become a bunch of screw ups... Who's to say it isn't something else like a magical lawn chair or snuffaluffagus?

[agnostic soldier]

Originally Posted by Deb in VA

Hmm, this looks like an absolute truth to me....

Absolutes are indicative of something that is true, moral etc. everywhere all the time. There may be a possibility of something being an absolute, but given the fact that truth claims change and evolve over time, there has never been any truth that has been proven to be absolutely true everywhere all the time, then there are no absolute truths, given that there is no evidence for something being definitively true all the time and everywhere. This may change, although it is statistically implausible that it will since that to could change.

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by cleatis

I didn't get the chance to read the link yet, but I can say from this: how is it so logical to assume that this is god. I mean there is some good evidence that there is something like this, but it is a real jump to conclusions to assume it's the same guy that sees all the nasty stuff we do in the shower, or the same guy that is all knowing yet surprised to see us become a bunch of screw ups... Who's to say it isn't something else like a magical lawn chair or snuffaluffagus?

Yeah, I addressed that in my big post. Heck, the argument doesn't even prove that the "independent mind" responsible for logical absolutes is self-conscious, let alone omnipotent/omniscient.

And of course the only answer we have from kdbrich is more evasion...

[Haaziq]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

Yeah, I addressed that in my big post. Heck, the argument doesn't even prove that the "independent mind" responsible for logical absolutes is self-conscious, let alone omnipotent/omniscient.

And of course the only answer we have from kdbrich is more evasion...

Eh, don't sweat it. If you haven't caught on to what he does yet, just look at some of the other threads he has started. He tries to argue using subjective arguments and the twisting of definitions. When proven wrong, he'll just act like the thread doesn't matter anymore.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

Yeah, I addressed that in my big post. Heck, the argument doesn't even prove that the "independent mind" responsible for logical absolutes is self-conscious, let alone omnipotent/omniscient.

And of course the only answer we have from kdbrich is more evasion...

There are certain logical absolutes that exist, despite what people may claim.

Law of identity....non exception, etc.


Prove that they don't and we'll tackle the next step.

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

There are certain logical absolutes that exist, despite what people may claim.
Law of identity....non exception, etc.
Prove that they don't and we'll tackle the next step.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/6549116-post27.html

And your post contains a contradiction. If I prove that they don't exist, I don't even need to debate the next step, because it will be based on false premises. I only did it for fun.

[kdbrich]

You proved no such thing. Frankly, you gave a bunch of gobblety-goop answers revolving around relevatism.

But are you absolutely sure of it?

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You proved no such thing. Frankly, you gave a bunch of gobblety-goop answers revolving around relevatism.

What is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. (edit : what does relevatism mean anyway?)

Originally Posted by kdbrich

But are you absolutely sure of it?

I would not have posted it if I thought it was wrong. But then again, I'm only human, and therefore can make mistakes in my logic.

Now stop making evasive one-sentence replies.