FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Existence of God(s)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 08:25 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-07-2007, 04:29 PM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: This planet.
Posts: 217
Default Why The Transcendental Argument Is Fallacious

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the preferred argumentative stance of a Christian with whom I am currently debating. This argument has an interesting history in Christian apologetics, where its proponents are few but vocal. Its paralyzing deficiency can be summarized thusly: It presumes facts about the very god it endeavors to prove. Certain "facts" about god, his nature and his characteristics underlie the argument’s reasoning. The problem, of course, is that one is not entitled to presuppositions about the nature and characteristics of the very being in question. My theist counterpart in a continuing debate has told me that god is infinite; however, he has not proven this. He has told me that Yahweh has always been god; however, he has not proven this. He has told me that Yahweh is solely god; however, he has not proven this. He has told me that Yahweh is unlike humankind; however, he has not proven this. It is as though this theist wishes I would grant him his theology. The entirety of TAG is constructed upon unsupported presumptions. If god's nature and characteristics are central to the argument's reasoning--and they are--then god's nature and characteristics, in themselves, must be proved first. The argument only can come afterward.

This raises an interesting problem: How might one ascertain facts about god, his nature and his characteristics? A theist would likely make two appeals: (a) his god character condescended to reveal himself to humanity, which is why we know about god, (b) the Bible, which is a perfect vessel of truth, provides facts about god. These, however, are two additional presuppositions! A theist would be responsible for proving god condescended to reveal himself to humanity. Moreover, he would be responsible for proving the Bible is a perfect vessel of truth. Again, a theist is not entitled to grand presuppositions such as the ones upon which he is reliant. If TAG entails factual presumptions--and it does--a theist must fully substantiate each presumption first.

Until he does, TAG cannot even be considered.
WWFStern is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:12 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.