anyone ever heard of the Transcendental Argument? (belief, principle, layman)

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Fire away with the criticism. Again--you have yet to disprove the law of identity.

Something is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't.

Start there.

1. I have already written something like a page on this subject. Your only answer was, basically, "you're wrong".
2. Why the heck should I start there, specifically, and nowhere else? If you just cannot discuss relativism (= relevatism; I finally figured it out), the other major flaw in the argument is in part 7 ("Thought reflect the mind"). It's addressed in my big post #26, and it's been noticed by numerous other posters on this thread.

Originally Posted by kdbricht

As for contacting Matt? Call him on the radio show.

As I said, I happen to live in Belgium and also have a horrible accent. Besides, in my experience, live debates tend to be about the best fast-talker, since no side has the time to research or ponder a question.

Originally Posted by kdbricht

Register for his forums--it's free.

That's an idea, I will. But I will insist in debating the subject here, in a place where none of us has admin powers and where the supporting crowd is balanced in atheists/believers.

Originally Posted by kdbricht

Or email him at carmradio@ymail.com

I'd love to listen to him read an email on the radio from you.

Sure, then he can say whatever he wants, on his own turf, and without leaving me an opportunity to answer. The very definition of a fair debate.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

1. I have already written something like a page on this subject. Your only answer was, basically, "you're wrong".

Because you never answered the question. You gave a long-winded response regarding quantum physics and how it might be one thing at one point, and another at another point, based on perception and other circumstances.

You never answered the question.

2. Why the heck should I start there, specifically, and nowhere else? If you just cannot discuss relativism (= relevatism; I finally figured it out), the other major flaw in the argument is in part 7 ("Thought reflect the mind"). It's addressed in my big post #26, and it's been noticed by numerous other posters on this thread.

I don't see anything such as that in post 26. Please explain.

As I said, I happen to live in Belgium and also have a horrible accent. Besides, in my experience, live debates tend to be about the best fast-talker, since no side has the time to research or ponder a question.

That's an idea, I will. But I will insist in debating the subject here, in a place where none of us has admin powers and where the supporting crowd is balanced in atheists/believers.

Actually, his message boards are well represented by atheists and non alike. He has a wide range of boards regarding mormonis, jws, and other religions/cults that are also well represented by members of their respective organizations. No "admin powers" are used to censor people there.

Sure, then he can say whatever he wants, on his own turf, and without leaving me an opportunity to answer. The very definition of a fair debate.

You're embarrassing yourself. You whine about him not having an email address...and when I post several ways to get in touch with the guy you back down like a scared little girl.

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Because you never answered the question. You gave a long-winded response regarding quantum physics and how it might be one thing at one point, and another at another point, based on perception and other circumstances.

Quantum physics? I believe you're confusing me with someone else.

Interesting fact: right below this sentence, where you, reader, see a big blank, are actually a few paragraphs of invisible text.

Originally Posted by forkpower

And one final note, with this argument, how do you know its your god it is proving? What if its Allah, FSM, Zues, Odin......? This arguement gives equal validity for all of mankinds deitys.

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

Last and not least we have occam's very sharp razor. The christian god isn't defined as the compilation of logical absolutes, she has thousands of other characteristics(some of which quite human) If we remove all the elements that do not come from the premises then we end up with god being defined as logical absolutes(ie your conclusion). You'd need to make a separate argument for omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence as well as any involvement with jesus.

I away your reply kdbrich.

Originally Posted by Roxolan

This is of course well outside formal logic... Things like "thoughts" and "mind" are extremely hard to define.

Yeah, I guess you could say that. Although it amounts to defining the mind as the sum of all thoughts - so it's an arbitrary definition rather than a proposition.

True by the definition above, though irrelevant. By the way, what is an "absolutely perfect" thought?

Ok, this statement has to be broken to pieces to be discussed.

[cut the relativism bit]

- perfectly consistent: true. Note that, by this reasoning, it only means that the hypothetical "independent mind" is perfectly consistent, not that it is perfect. Sneaky, isn't it? Noticed how kdbrich apparently missed this when he quoted it in post #8?

Now that you've shoehorned "perfect" into the sentence, it sounds true, doesn't it? Told you it was sneaky...

So you call it "God". That's your choice. You could just as easily call it "The origin of logic", "Thor", "The Truth", "Mister Scruffy" etc. Assuming the rest of the reasoning is correct (which it isn't), you've proved the existence of something, which share some characteristics with God (ability to conceive logical ax/def, inability to make reasoning mistakes, not part of the physical world). Calling it "God" is a pretty big leap.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Actually, his message boards are well represented by atheists and non alike. He has a wide range of boards regarding mormonis, jws, and other religions/cults that are also well represented by members of their respective organizations. No "admin powers" are used to censor people there.

Indeed? I will have a look. Nevertheless, I will do what I can to keep CD folks informed of the debate, if debate there ever is.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You're embarrassing yourself. You whine about him not having an email address...and when I post several ways to get in touch with the guy you back down like a scared little girl.

Originally Posted by Roxolan

That's an idea, I will.

As you might have noticed, I'm actively looking to debate the guy, because I like debates and there isn't one over here. However, as I explained, I think I'd be at a serious disadvantage in a phone conversation (let alone the technical difficulties, what with me living in Belgium and all). Obviously, my disadvantage would be far greater if I'm not able to respond at all - as will be the case if Mr Slick reads and discuss my argument on his radio show.

[Roxolan]

Actually, given the Authority Structure on the CARM boards, I'm afraid I will insist for any debate to be had here, or on any other forum where one debater is not "the President and final authority".

If you have a problem with a moderator, first contact Diane. If you have a problem with Diane, then me (Matt Slick). If you have a problem with me, then pray because that's all you have left -- other than leaving.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

Actually, given the Authority Structure on the CARM boards, I'm afraid I will insist for any debate to be had here, or on any other forum where one debater is not "the President and final authority".

They are his message boards. He doesn't answer to internet toughguys that want to whine about perceived injustices anymore than the mods here answer to me. Peruse the debate boards a bit. It's really not about him trying to be biased. I've been posting on his site for about 10 years now.

Honestly? I don't think you'd stand a chance against him--he'd rip anything you've got apart. I'm nowhere near as eloquent with the argument as he is--but he's been doing apologetics for 25 years. I've listened to the guy enough to know that.

Post 26, which you suggested was not really addressing what you were referring to.

Originally Posted by forkpower
And one final note, with this argument, how do you know its your god it is proving? What if its Allah, FSM, Zues, Odin......? This arguement gives equal validity for all of mankinds deitys.

This argument is not about which God--it only points to the existence of a creator. I've never suggested that it proves the Christian God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
Last and not least we have occam's very sharp razor. The christian god isn't defined as the compilation of logical absolutes, she has thousands of other characteristics(some of which quite human) If we remove all the elements that do not come from the premises then we end up with god being defined as logical absolutes(ie your conclusion). You'd need to make a separate argument for omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence as well as any involvement with jesus.

You've kind of gone off base here. The TAG argument simply states that the existence of logical absolutes proves the existence of God. I don't recall bringing up Occam's razor. It simply states the need for God.

Originally Posted by Roxolan
Quote:
7. Thoughts reflect the mind
A. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
This is of course well outside formal logic... Things like "thoughts" and "mind" are extremely hard to define.

Yeah, I guess you could say that. Although it amounts to defining the mind as the sum of all thoughts - so it's an arbitrary definition rather than a proposition.

No. Nobody is defining the mind here. It's simply stating that the existence of logic requires the existence of a mind.

Quote:
B. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
True by the definition above, though irrelevant. By the way, what is an "absolutely perfect" thought?

The law of identity would be a good start.

Quote:
C. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
Ok, this statement has to be broken to pieces to be discussed.

- perfectly consistent: true. Note that, by this reasoning, it only means that the hypothetical "independent mind" is perfectly consistent, not that it is perfect. Sneaky, isn't it? Noticed how kdbrich apparently missed this when he quoted it in post #8?

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what is meant by this statement.

Quote:
D. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind, God.
Now that you've shoehorned "perfect" into the sentence, it sounds true, doesn't it? Told you it was sneaky...

It's a perfect law of logic. It's a logical absolute. Of course it would point to a perfect mind.

So you call it "God". That's your choice. You could just as easily call it "The origin of logic", "Thor", "The Truth", "Mister Scruffy" etc. Assuming the rest of the reasoning is correct (which it isn't), you've proved the existence of something, which share some characteristics with God (ability to conceive logical ax/def, inability to make reasoning mistakes, not part of the physical world). Calling it "God" is a pretty big leap.

So are you willing to concede that the TAG argument points to the existence of a supernatural, God being? If so....why are you claiming to be an atheist?

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

They are his message boards. He doesn't answer to internet toughguys that want to whine about perceived injustices anymore than the mods here answer to me. Peruse the debate boards a bit. It's really not about him trying to be biased. I've been posting on his site for about 10 years now.

I understand that. And it's quite possible that the guy is perfectly fair and honest. But I still think it's not a good idea for any debate to take place where one poster has absolute moderator powers. Hopefully Mr Slick will agree with me.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Honestly? I don't think you'd stand a chance against him--he'd rip anything you've got apart. I'm nowhere near as eloquent with the argument as he is--but he's been doing apologetics for 25 years. I've listened to the guy enough to know that.

I think we should add another argument to the list:

ARGUMENT FROM APOLOGETIC AUTHORITY
(1) I'm going to prove to you that God exists.
(2) [Copy-pasted argument found on the internet.]
(3) [Atheist refutes argument.]
(4) But that argument was written by an awesome apologetic Christian! He eats atheists for breakfast!
(5) Therefore he must be right.
(6) Therefore God exists.

Originally Posted by Roxolan

It's addressed in my big post #26

Originally Posted by kdbricht

Post 26, which you suggested was not really addressing what you were referring to.

Oh I'm sorry, you are right. I refered to post #26, a couple of paragraphs by Randomstudent, while I thought of post #27, a 7 pages-long post by myself. I can see how one could be confused. My apologies.

Now, I see that you finally decided to address a point that was made all over the thread. Let's see...

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You've kind of gone off base here. The TAG argument simply states that the existence of logical absolutes proves the existence of God. I don't recall bringing up Occam's razor. It simply states the need for God.

No it doesn't. It proves the existence of something, whose characteristics are:
- The ability to conceive logical absolutes, like we can (arguably a specific form of creativity).
- Perfect consistency, i.e. the inability to make reasoning mistakes, as far as logical absolutes are concerned.
- An independence from the physical world.

However, the name "God" implies the following characteristics:
- Omnipotence (or at least superhuman power)
- Omniscience (or at least extensive knowledge and intelligence)
- Responsibility for deliberately creating the universe, including human beings (which requires a superhuman level of creativity).
- Self-consciousness, and the ability to have goals and desires.

coosjoaquin was right to mention Occam's razor: instead of attributing the existence of logical absolutes to the "something" described above, the argument attributes it to God, which is a more complex hypothesis, without justifications.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

The law of identity would be a good start.

Why is the law of identity a "perfect" thought? What is the definition of a perfect thought?

Originally Posted by kdbrich

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what is meant by this statement.

"Perfectly consistent" is different from "perfect". For example, a computer (if its hardware is not damaged) is perfectly consistent: it obeys a set of laws without ever making mistakes. A good logician is also perfectly consistent, as long as he's only doing basic stuff. Whether you consider a computer or a logician to be a perfect mind is up to you - but in that case the name is misleading. Otherwise, I would like to see your definition of "perfect mind" and "perfect though".

Originally Posted by kdbrich

It's a perfect law of logic. It's a logical absolute. Of course it would point to a perfect mind.

As you may be aware, we humans are capable of conceiving laws of logic (sometimes different from the "logical absolutes" of the argument, though no less "perfect"). The author of the argument, for example, was able to come up with the law of identity on his own. I personally objects to the idea that he is a perfect mind, or possibly God.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

So are you willing to concede that the TAG argument points to the existence of a supernatural, God being? If so....why are you claiming to be an atheist?

I think the transcendental argument is flawed for other reasons (see post #27). But since you are unwilling to seriously discuss those reasons, I am making the claim that even if we admit the existence of logical absolutes, it still does not prove the existence of God as the term is usually defined. The fact that I acknowledge a set of hypothesis in order to discuss a specific point does not indicate that I do in fact find those hypothesis to be true.

[kdbrich]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
They are his message boards. He doesn't answer to internet toughguys that want to whine about perceived injustices anymore than the mods here answer to me. Peruse the debate boards a bit. It's really not about him trying to be biased. I've been posting on his site for about 10 years now.
I understand that. And it's quite possible that the guy is perfectly fair and honest. But I still think it's not a good idea for any debate to take place where one poster has absolute moderator powers. Hopefully Mr Slick will agree with me.


[/quote]

I'm not his agent, and I honestly don't care too much about whether or not a debate actually happens, but you were curious how to get ahold of the guy.

Send him an email if you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Honestly? I don't think you'd stand a chance against him--he'd rip anything you've got apart. I'm nowhere near as eloquent with the argument as he is--but he's been doing apologetics for 25 years. I've listened to the guy enough to know that.
I think we should add another argument to the list:

Quote:
ARGUMENT FROM APOLOGETIC AUTHORITY
(1) I'm going to prove to you that God exists.
(2) [Copy-pasted argument found on the internet.]
(3) [Atheist refutes argument.]
(4) But that argument was written by an awesome apologetic Christian! He eats atheists for breakfast!
(5) Therefore he must be right.
(6) Therefore God exists.

LOL...go for it. Not to sound like a lovesick groupie...but the arguments you and others have made here have been dealt with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan
It's addressed in my big post #26
Quote:

Originally Posted by kdbricht
Post 26, which you suggested was not really addressing what you were referring to.
Oh I'm sorry, you are right. I refered to post #26, a couple of paragraphs by Randomstudent, while I thought of post #27, a 7 pages-long post by myself. I can see how one could be confused. My apologies.

Now, I see that you finally decided to address a point that was made all over the thread. Let's see...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
You've kind of gone off base here. The TAG argument simply states that the existence of logical absolutes proves the existence of God. I don't recall bringing up Occam's razor. It simply states the need for God.
No it doesn't. It proves the existence of something, whose characteristics are:
- The ability to conceive logical absolutes, like we can (arguably a specific form of creativity).
- Perfect consistency, i.e. the inability to make reasoning mistakes, as far as logical absolutes are concerned.
- An independence from the physical world.

Yup.

However, the name "God" implies the following characteristics:
- Omnipotence (or at least superhuman power)
- Omniscience (or at least extensive knowledge and intelligence)
- Responsibility for deliberately creating the universe, including human beings (which requires a superhuman level of creativity).
- Self-consciousness, and the ability to have goals and desires.

If the being exists outside the universe, and is capable of perfect, consistent logic...I don't have a problem making the jump to a deity.

Such a being would be superhuman, and omniscient (regarding the universe).

coosjoaquin was right to mention Occam's razor: instead of attributing the existence of logical absolutes to the "something" described above, the argument attributes it to God, which is a more complex hypothesis, without justifications.

But the TAG argument does not necessarily make that jump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Quote:
By the way, what is an "absolutely perfect" thought?
The law of identity would be a good start.
Why is the law of identity a "perfect" thought? What is the definition of a perfect thought?

Honestly? I'm not really sure what the original person that used that phrase would mean by it. We probably should define that. I would suppose that it is something that is consistent. The law of identity is a logical absolute. It is perfectly consistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Quote:
Note that, by this reasoning, it only means that the hypothetical "independent mind" is perfectly consistent, not that it is perfect. Sneaky, isn't it? Noticed how kdbrich apparently missed this when he quoted it in post #8?
I'm sorry but I'm not sure what is meant by this statement.

"Perfectly consistent" is different from "perfect". For example, a computer (if its hardware is not damaged) is perfectly consistent: it obeys a set of laws without ever making mistakes. A good logician is also perfectly consistent, as long as he's only doing basic stuff. Whether you consider a computer or a logician to be a perfect mind is up to you - but in that case the name is misleading. Otherwise, I would like to see your definition of "perfect mind" and "perfect though".

As I just mentioned above, I'd be all for defining that. I didn't coin the phrase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
It's a perfect law of logic. It's a logical absolute. Of course it would point to a perfect mind.
As you may be aware, we humans are capable of conceiving laws of logic (sometimes different from the "logical absolutes" of the argument, though no less "perfect"). The author of the argument, for example, was able to come up with the law of identity on his own. I personally objects to the idea that he is a perfect mind, or possibly God.

He made the observation of the law of identity--but the law would still exist with or w/out him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
So are you willing to concede that the TAG argument points to the existence of a supernatural, God being? If so....why are you claiming to be an atheist?

I think the transcendental argument is flawed for other reasons (see post #27). But since you are unwilling to seriously discuss those reasons, I am making the claim that even if we admit the existence of logical absolutes, it still does not prove the existence of God as the term is usually defined. The fact that I acknowledge a set of hypothesis in order to discuss a specific point does not indicate that I do in fact find those hypothesis to be true.

So what it comes down to is that you don't really have a way to refute it, but just call it flawed?

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

If the being exists outside the universe, and is capable of perfect, consistent logic...I don't have a problem making the jump to a deity.
But the TAG argument does not necessarily make that jump.

So you agree that the "Transcendental Argument for the existence of God" is really the "TA for the existence of a mind independent of our universe and capable of conceiving logical absolutes"?

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Such a being would be superhuman, and omniscient (regarding the universe).

You read my list of the characteristics of this "being". What makes you say that it's superhuman and omniscient? In fact, the TAG has not proven that it has any power (except a little abstract creativity) or knowledge at all.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Honestly? I'm not really sure what the original person that used that phrase would mean by it. We probably should define that. I would suppose that it is something that is consistent. The law of identity is a logical absolute. It is perfectly consistent.

Ok, so long as we agree on definitions. I still think it's misleading, though. For now on, I will always use "consistent" rather than "perfect", and encourage you to do the same.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

So what it comes down to is that you don't really have a way to refute it, but just call it flawed?

Funny you should say that, as I find the situation to be entirely opposite. I wrote a page-long refutation of the TAG, and this is the best answer you have given to it:

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Frankly, you gave a bunch of gobblety-goop answers revolving around relevatism.

[EarthBound?]

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. "

Ok, I give, I'm lost. Are you asking if anyone has had an argument with a ghost ?

[tgnostic]

Has anyone transcended to their immanence (Hegel claims he has)? In other words, not knowing what the other is truly thinking provocatively is not as hard as I knowing what 'I' am thinking provocatively? Actually it is the proven that way in advance by being at solopsism: really we are not solipsists nor can be.