Goliath

luvluv,

I do not posit the xian god, and I know that every UFD is an HFD. Your assertion is therefore demonstrably wrong.

Soundly refuted (see above).

Sincerely,

Goliath

Tercel

That's what I said. It only shows that we should assume God's existence, not that Christianity is true. For some reason Presuppositionalists seem to confuse the two regularly.

gcameron

Or, as my brother Cherryfunk once challenged the IIDB's premiere presupper: "Hey Jim Mitchell, why the Bible and not the Koran?"

I confess I didn't read Mitchell's response, but I'll wager it was lengthy...

Goliath

Tercel,

Incorrect. The transcendental argument fails each and every time it is used because implicit in the argument is the statement that is to be proven (the statement being that a god exists).

Sincerely,

Goliath

TheGreatInfidel

It fails on many levels. If posed as proof for god's existence, then it begs the question.

If posed as arguing that we must assume a theistic worldview to make sense of knowledge, then I don't see how this is any skin off the atheists nose, since it's conclusion is that *christianity must be assumed* and not that *Christianity is true*. And that's if we assume it's a sound argument.


I find that this "argument" is great for preaching to the choir; THeist tend to be very fond of it -evidently they are convinced by it. I've noticed that every so often some theist comes to this forum, makes allusion to it, but never sticks around to back it up.

Which reminds me - - the person who presented it to me said that it's hard to put it in syllogistic form. It's no wonder why! Its flaws become more evident.

Jack the Bodiless

I think it appeals to some theists because it gives them an excuse to make really grandiose claims:

Tired of attempting to wriggle out of Biblical contradictions? Fed up with pinpointing a gap in the fossil record, only to have some meddling paleontologist dig up the very transitional fossil that you said cannot exist?

Just declare your God to exist by the Impossibility of the Contrary! Everyone knows your God exists, even atheists need to borrow from your worldview in order to use reason! They've lost the argument! Halleluia!

What a relief! I can stop thinking now.

luvluv

But isn't it true that there is no fundamental basis for knowledge? That doesn't bother any of you even a little bit?

Leave the theists out of it, how do you feel justified in claiming to know anything? Reading this, I kind of thought the point was that you are making presuppositions ANYWAY in claiming that your knowledge about the world is real in any sense, so why is one presuppostion superior to another?

If that is granted, then the case against theism evaporates, even if the case for theism is not established. You have no grounds for claiming to know anything, therefore you have no grounds for disputing any theistic prounouncement. You can either decided to go with that assertion, or with some alternative which is entirely epistemologically equivalent, or you can just embrace your total ignorance (and to do so would effectively mean your death). If there is no ground of knowledge, atheists have no grounds upon which to claim that their view is more rational than the view of theists.

So how do you folks deal with that, because if you agree that there isn't a good foundation of knowledge, then it is hypocritical of you to make any claims against the rationality of theism.

Goliath

luvluv,

Your babbling about how it's impossible to know anything if we don't assume that your god exists is....well...babbling, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The fact remains that the transcendental argument fails because within it lies the assumption that a god exists, and this is what is to be proven! The fact that the transcendental argument fails is absolutely irrefutable, and no amount of babbling or whining from you will ever change that.

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv

Ohhh! Zesty!

It isn't a syllogistic argument, if I understand it correctly, trying to PROVE the existence of God.

It simply says the existene of God is necessary for us to believe that we know anything. So if you're going to abandon all claims to knowledge, that would be a legitimate response to the transcendental argument. But it would be kind of dishonest or evasive to just ignore it's very signifigant claims.

It doesn't fail because it isn't a formal syllogistic argument, it is a form of reductio absurdium. Isn't that a legitimate means of arguing in favor for something?

At any rate, how do you KNOW, the argument begs the question? How do you know anything? That's kind of the point.

Without a foundation of knowledge, the claim even to know that the transcendental argument begs the question is itself unjustified.

Bilbo

Goliath writes:

------------------------------
The fact remains that the transcendental argument fails because within it lies the assumption that a god exists, and this is what is to be proven!....
------------------------------

Whatever defects transcendental arguments exhibit (whether of local or global scope), this isn't one of them. Perhaps you're just unfamiliar with indirect proof proceedures.

A TA for God (or anything else for that matter) does not "assume" its transcendental premise, so much as it *deduces* the truth of that premise from an "assumption"; ad argumentum, that the thesis is *false*. So the relevant "assumptions" associated with TAs (in this case Gods existence) is that He *doesn't* exist.

Note also that the "necessity" associated with transcendental arguments is "weaker" (ie narrower) than other sorts of necessities that interest philosophers, because the necessity under observation is always *relative* to some contingent phenomena.

Whether the proponent of such arguments actually establishes the "transcendental deduction" (to use Kantspeak) in a rigorous and substantial way, is another issue.


------------------------------
The fact that the transcendental argument fails is absolutely irrefutable, and no amount of babbling or whining from you will ever change that.
------------------------------

There are different sorts of transcendental arguments, and problems arising with one type don't necessarily carry over to others. In anycase, the logical "problem" you identify isn't really a problem for any of them, if their form is adequately comprehended.

Regards,

Bilbo