Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hubrys Polymetis · 10-03-2002, 02:17 PM

I was just wondering if someone could give me a good definition of this proof, and if anyone could then give me some good criticisms of it. I was confronted by a theist that constantly refered to this vague proof for the existence of God, but he wouldn't define it so that it could be debated.

Kantian · 10-03-2002, 02:44 PM

Transcendental proof of God is a variant of the classical ontological proof of God. Anything that is "transcendental" usually means something a priori, known before experience, something logical or mathematical that needs no recourse to experience for verification.

<a href="http://www.u-turn.net/3-2/exist.html" target="_blank">Here's a winner.</a> <a href="http://www.popchapel.com/Resources/Bahnsen/GreatDebate/GreatDebate.txt" target="_blank">And here's another!</a>

My 2 cents: They are all candidates of the logic of illusion, concepts that are bereft of empirical worth.

~Transcendentalist~

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kantian ]

Grumpy · 10-03-2002, 03:17 PM

Proofs of God exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Taffy Lewis · 10-03-2002, 04:33 PM

Hubrys Polymetis,

The Secular Web library has some essays and debates dealing with transcendental arguments.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/transcendental.html" target="_blank">Transcendental Arguments</a>

A good discussion of C.S. Lewis' version of the argument can be found at:

<a href="http://faculty.winthrop.edu/craigheadh/articles/csl.htm" target="_blank">Lewis' Teleological Argument</a>

I know that the argument is referred to as a "teleological argument" but the reasoning is basically the same as in transcendental arguments.

Another good discussion of the same type of argument can be found at the Secular Web:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html" target="_blank">Argument from Reason</a>

Bloop · 10-03-2002, 05:06 PM

Can one not presuppose the Mighty Care Bear who's only purpose is to account for the three points ment�oned in the first article, laws of logic, uniformity of nature and absolute morals.

To me this whole line of arguing amounts to "God and then *ZZZING* *POOF* Morals, uniformity and logic.

Many philosophers and others as well will seriously challenge the fact that there are absolute morals "written on the consciences of men"

Quote:

Dr. Stein goes on to raise the issue of the problem of evil present in a world created by an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God. However, Dr. Bahnsen responds by asserting that there is no problem of evil in an atheist worldview because in it there can be no universal laws of morality. Again, the very posing of the problem presupposes the Christian theistic worldview

Is it so hard to see that the critique offered by Dr. Stein is pointed at the internal coherence of the Christian worldview ?

Michael Martin tries to formulate a formal version of the TAG here:'

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html" target="_blank">Does Logic Presuppose the Existence of the Christian God?</a>

(1) Either deductive validity is conventional or it is not.

(2) If it is not conventional, it must have a metaphysical explanation.

(3) If it has a metaphysical explanation, then the best metaphysical explanation is that it is created by the Christian God.

(4) Deductive validity is not conventional.
_________________________________________________
5) Therefore, the best metaphysical explanation of the deductive validity is that it was created by the Christian God.

My thinking is that (2) simply begs the question on the necessity of metaphysical explanation for deductive logic. If you as an atheist maintains that there is no need for a metaphysical explanation ? Would that be logic as a brute fact/presupposition ? (2) needs more support.

The argument stands and falls with (3). In many "presupp" debates you hear this asserted but very seldom elaborated upon.

Martin's text brings on another question of some importance:

Quote:

To speak of the Christian foundations of deductive validity could mean that the Christian God created the deductively validity and without God's creative act there would be no deductive validity. However, the problem with this interpretation is that is implies that God could have created the opposite; that is, a deductively valid argument in which true premises necessitate a false conclusion. This is unintelligible, however, and in addition to this problem makes the truth of logical validity dependent on God's whim and arbitrary decision.

To move one step further. If it isn't possible for God to have a creation without the validity of deductive logic doesn't this somehow suggest that deductive logic is independent from God ?

Someone on another thread said in reference to Van Til something about "sultan of sophistry"

Ad hominem will never be accepted as arguments but neither will the clouding of words and thoughts

This is a quote from Van Til in the Martin article:

Quote:

All predication presupposes the existence of God. . . . while anti-theism holds that predication is possible without any reference of God. This at once gives the terms 'is' and 'is not' quite different connotations. For the anti-theist these terms play against the background of bare possibilities. Hence 'is' and 'is not' may very well be reversed. The anti-theist has, if effect, denied the very law of contradiction, inasmuch as the law of contradiction, to operate at all, must have it foundations in God."[16]

This may be out of context but Martin tries to interpret it into a formal argument. But can anyone explain to me what the hell Van Til is on about in this very paragraph ? And what's with the term "anti-theist" ? Poisoning the well ? In my next argument I will refer to any theist as anti-atheist

Silent Acorns · 10-03-2002, 06:15 PM

Quote:

This is a quote from Van Til in the Martin article:

"All predication presupposes the existence of God. . . . while anti-theism holds that predication is possible without any reference of God. This at once gives the terms 'is' and 'is not' quite different connotations. For the anti-theist these terms play against the background of bare possibilities. Hence 'is' and 'is not' may very well be reversed. The anti-theist has, in effect, denied the very law of contradiction, inasmuch as the law of contradiction, to operate at all, must have it foundations in God."

Bloop:

Quote:

But can anyone explain to me what the hell Van Til is on about in this very paragraph ?

My translation:
The act of making a claim presupposes that Satan exists ... while anti-Satanism claims that it is possible to make a claim without Satan. This at once gives the terms 'boink' and 'boink not' quite different meanings. For the anti-Satanist these terms play against the Bismark of orange coffee cups. Hence 'boink' and 'boink not' may very well be yellowed. The anti-Satanist has, in effect, purpled the very law of doughnuts, inasmuch as the law of doughnuts, to operate at all, must have it's colourations in Satan.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Silent Acorns ]

Bloop · 10-04-2002, 02:47 AM

Maybe Michael Martins attempt to understand the paragraph will help:

Quote:

Although what Van Til's is somewhat obscure, perhaps the following reconstruction of his argument captures his main idea:

(1) If the Christian God did not exist, then predication would operate against a background of bare possibility.

(2) If predication operates against a background of bare possibility, the predication of P to x ( x is P) may be reversed and ~ P might be predicated of x ( x is ~ P)

(3) But if the predication of P to x ( x is P) is reversed and ~ P is be predicated of x ( x is ~ P), then the law of non contradiction must be denied.
________________________________________________
(4) Therefore, If the Christian God did not exist, then the law of non contradiction must be denied.

Every premise of this argument is questionable, however. Consider premise (1). What does operating against "the background of bare possibility" mean? The only meaning that would seem at all plausible is the background of logical possibility. So understood, the law of noncontradiction could not be denied. Something by definition is logically possible when the law of noncontradiction holds. Consider premise (2). Yes, predication can be reversed in one obvious sense. For example, X can be blue at one time and not blue at some other time; X can be blue at the bottom at time t and not blue at the top at time t, and so on. But X cannot be blue and not blue at the same time in the same respect. Thus, (3) is false if the antecedent of the hypothetical is understood in the proper way. The sense in which predication can be reversed does not affect the law of contradiction; the sense in which it cannot is based on this law. Van Til seems to plays on this ambiguity in presenting this argument.

Not much help other than the fact that Martin is also rather puzzled and the ways he tries to interpret things to make some sense isn't helping Van Til.

But hey, I fear that your interpretation of it might be just as accurate. If there are any proponents of this specific argument reading this help would be appreciated.

Bloop

Keith Russell · 10-04-2002, 07:31 AM

Deleted. Accidentally posted in the wrong thread.

(Sheepish grin.)

Keith.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]

Bloop · 10-04-2002, 09:03 AM

Hey Keith I think you posted this in the wrong thread

Keith Russell · 10-04-2002, 09:13 AM

Bloop!

I think...you're right.

Oops!

Keith.

10-03-2002, 02:17 PM	#1
Hubrys Polymetis Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Georgia Posts: 22	Transendental Proof for the Existence of God I was just wondering if someone could give me a good definition of this proof, and if anyone could then give me some good criticisms of it. I was confronted by a theist that constantly refered to this vague proof for the existence of God, but he wouldn't define it so that it could be debated.

10-03-2002, 02:44 PM	#2
Kantian Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Konigsberg Posts: 238	Transcendental proof of God is a variant of the classical ontological proof of God. Anything that is "transcendental" usually means something a priori, known before experience, something logical or mathematical that needs no recourse to experience for verification. <a href="http://www.u-turn.net/3-2/exist.html" target="_blank">Here's a winner.</a> <a href="http://www.popchapel.com/Resources/Bahnsen/GreatDebate/GreatDebate.txt" target="_blank">And here's another!</a> My 2 cents: They are all candidates of the logic of illusion, concepts that are bereft of empirical worth. ~Transcendentalist~ [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kantian ]</p>

10-04-2002, 07:31 AM	#8
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Deleted. Accidentally posted in the wrong thread. (Sheepish grin.) Keith. [ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-03-2002, 03:17 PM	#3
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Proofs of God exist. Therefore, God exists.

10-03-2002, 04:33 PM	#4
Taffy Lewis Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North America Posts: 203	Hubrys Polymetis, The Secular Web library has some essays and debates dealing with transcendental arguments. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/transcendental.html" target="_blank">Transcendental Arguments</a> A good discussion of C.S. Lewis' version of the argument can be found at: <a href="http://faculty.winthrop.edu/craigheadh/articles/csl.htm" target="_blank">Lewis' Teleological Argument</a> I know that the argument is referred to as a "teleological argument" but the reasoning is basically the same as in transcendental arguments. Another good discussion of the same type of argument can be found at the Secular Web: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html" target="_blank">Argument from Reason</a>

10-04-2002, 09:03 AM	#9
Bloop Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Sweden Posts: 833	Hey Keith I think you posted this in the wrong thread

10-04-2002, 09:13 AM	#10
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Bloop! I think...you're right. Oops! Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.