The Transcendental argument, dud or stud?

Avatar image for danwallacefan
danwallacefan

2413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 danwallacefan
Member since 2008 • 2413 Posts

I honestly haven't made up my mind because how logic relates to Leibniz' principle of sufficient reason seems to make God irrelevant to logic. However, there are 2 gents on Youtube who are very popular proponents of the transcendental argument for God and they are Matt Slick of CARM (Christian apologetics and research ministry) and Zkueker88 of the self-founded "truth defense ministry"

In a nutshell (or at least to my understanding), TAG proposes that the atheist and naturalist cannot give an account for the unchanging and absolute laws of logic, but Christianity can. Since atheism would lead to absurd conclusions, we should adopt christianity.

Now if you learned this argument from either of the 2 aforementioned gents, I suggest you unlearn everything they said because the formulator of this argument, Cornelius Van Til (and possibly Immanuel Kant) did not argue it this way. A youtube user, Theologica37, has made a terrific sum of videos explaining and defending it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KYhVCIAyII&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-ieEBPR3Qw&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGahlUXt0I&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e49gel86V0&feature=channel_page

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

Icwatudidthar

Ah yes the transcendental argument. Unfortunately the only version of it that I've seen is the one presented by Matt Slick and I remember thinking it was a load of bollocks. To my memory it went something like:

P1. The logical laws of nature aren't physically manifest so therefore they can only be present in a mind

P2. The logical laws of nature are absolute

Therefore: there must be some perfect non-physical mind that always existed and accounts for the logical laws and this mind we call God.

It's kind of like the ontological argument, interesting yet utterly silly. I'll definitely watch the videos that you've provided though to see if Theologica37 defends it better and then I'll post my impressions and any counter-argument that I can provide.

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

Allrighty I'm on the first video and so far it's sounding a little familiar. I'll reproduce the important bits and try to sum it up into a formal argument.

P1- The laws of logic are immaterial and metaphysical, unchanging, abstract, personal and are not dependant on the brain, mankind or society

P2- In an atheistic universe where only matter exists there cannot be non-physical, metaphysical, absolute and personal laws of consciousness

P3- The necessary precondition that gives coherent meaning to the laws of logic is eternal, spaceless, non-contingent, personal and perfect

Conclusion #1 (P1+P3)- An eternal, incorporeal, necessary, personal and perfect being exists which can be called God.

Conclusion #2 (P1+P2)- Atheists are practising "aggressive ravenous and fallacious idiocy" by using logic to deny God.

Okay that's about the best summary I can manage right now. Let me know if its any good because the last thing I want to be doing is knocking down a straw man.

The main problems that anyone is going to have with this argument is inevitably going to be with premise 1. Here's a question for you, are the logical laws prescriptive or descriptive? Do the logical laws instruct reality how to behave or do the logical laws simply describe the way that reality behaves?

I didn't think that question up all by myself I just rewatched this video by theoreticalbull**** . I must be missing something though because despite the fact that your link was a response to this video it didn't seem to engage with the criticisms that it offered. Oh well I'll wait and see what you think of my formal argument and my question before I push on. I'll also watch the other videos and comment on them as well.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

Allrighty I'm on the first video and so far it's sounding a little familiar. I'll reproduce the important bits and try to sum it up into a formal argument.

P1- The laws of logic are immaterial and metaphysical, unchanging, abstract, personal and are not dependant on the brain, mankind or society

P2- In an atheistic universe where only matter exists there cannot be non-physical, metaphysical, absolute and personal laws of consciousness

P3- The necessary precondition that gives coherent meaning to the laws of logic is eternal, spaceless, non-contingent, personal and perfect

Conclusion #1 (P1+P3)- An eternal, incorporeal, necessary, personal and perfect being exists which can be called God.

Conclusion #2 (P1+P2)- Atheists are practising "aggressive ravenous and fallacious idiocy" by using logic to deny God.

Okay that's about the best summary I can manage right now. Let me know if its any good because the last thing I want to be doing is knocking down a straw man.

The main problems that anyone is going to have with this argument is inevitably going to be with premise 1. Here's a question for you, are the logical laws prescriptive or descriptive? Do the logical laws instruct reality how to behave or do the logical laws simply describe the way that reality behaves?

I didn't think that question up all by myself I just rewatched this video by theoreticalbull**** . I must be missing something though because despite the fact that your link was a response to this video it didn't seem to engage with the criticisms that it offered. Oh well I'll wait and see what you think of my formal argument and my question before I push on. I'll also watch the other videos and comment on them as well.

domatron23
That was my reaction - that they're just human creations that describe the behaviour of the universe.
Avatar image for danwallacefan
danwallacefan

2413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 danwallacefan
Member since 2008 • 2413 Posts
[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Allrighty I'm on the first video and so far it's sounding a little familiar. I'll reproduce the important bits and try to sum it up into a formal argument.

P1- The laws of logic are immaterial and metaphysical, unchanging, abstract, personal and are not dependant on the brain, mankind or society

P2- In an atheistic universe where only matter exists there cannot be non-physical, metaphysical, absolute and personal laws of consciousness

P3- The necessary precondition that gives coherent meaning to the laws of logic is eternal, spaceless, non-contingent, personal and perfect

Conclusion #1 (P1+P3)- An eternal, incorporeal, necessary, personal and perfect being exists which can be called God.

Conclusion #2 (P1+P2)- Atheists are practising "aggressive ravenous and fallacious idiocy" by using logic to deny God.

Okay that's about the best summary I can manage right now. Let me know if its any good because the last thing I want to be doing is knocking down a straw man.

The main problems that anyone is going to have with this argument is inevitably going to be with premise 1. Here's a question for you, are the logical laws prescriptive or descriptive? Do the logical laws instruct reality how to behave or do the logical laws simply describe the way that reality behaves?

I didn't think that question up all by myself I just rewatched this video by theoreticalbull**** . I must be missing something though because despite the fact that your link was a response to this video it didn't seem to engage with the criticisms that it offered. Oh well I'll wait and see what you think of my formal argument and my question before I push on. I'll also watch the other videos and comment on them as well.

Funky_Llama

That was my reaction - that they're just human creations that describe the behaviour of the universe.

I actually made a video critiquing TAG and this particular response to it.

When we propose this sort of Ontology of logic, then we run into a boatload of problems within the Epistemology of Logic

1: We run into the problem of a priori knowledge of Logic. Once one actually knows about the 3 laws of logic, you know that they HAVE to be true. This belief is self-evident, and belongs under a special ****of beliefs called "Foundations" or "Properly basic belief". However, if Logic is an abstract description of the way the world behaves, then logic is no longer self-evident, but rather is known through inductive inference a posteriori. That however is quite absurd

2: We run into the problem of induction. If we dont know either induction or deduction a priori, then how on earth do we go about justifying induction without binding principles of reality? moreover, how can we POSSIBLY hope to justify deduction? Surely we cannot go about justifying deduction with induction, that is patently absurd!

I would have to say that the laws of logic are prescriptive principles that govern reality, which we know a priori, and which exist by the necessity of their own nature.

Avatar image for 7guns
7guns

1449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#6 7guns
Member since 2006 • 1449 Posts

Laws of Logics are metaphysical, hmmm ok.!!! Atheists don't believe in metaphysical. So, atheists are denying laws of logic!!! This is why TAG doesen't apply to agnostics, only atheists...

So, if there is no god I'll will be able to exist in two places at once? The universe would literally defy physical laws. This would mean "Laws of Logic" are actually "Laws of God" :x

I think "TAG" is a huge mix-up of ideas and it deceptively assumes "The 3 Laws of logic" are actually "Laws of God" in the sense that laws of the physical world are in place, not with respect to physical properties of matter, but with respect to whims of "God" This makes TAG circular!!!

This is what I could understand listening to the first video......

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

Laws of Logics are metaphysical, hmmm ok.!!! Atheists don't believe in metaphysical. So, atheists are denying laws of logic!!! This is why TAG doesen't apply to agnostics, only atheists...

7guns
Wut. O_o
Avatar image for 7guns
7guns

1449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#8 7guns
Member since 2006 • 1449 Posts
[QUOTE="7guns"]

Laws of Logics are metaphysical, hmmm ok.!!! Atheists don't believe in metaphysical. So, atheists are denying laws of logic!!! This is why TAG doesen't apply to agnostics, only atheists...

Funky_Llama

Wut. O_o

He did mention the agnostic part at 6:26 in the first video...

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
I actually made a video critiquing TAG and this particular response to it.

When we propose this sort of Ontology of logic, then we run into a boatload of problems within the Epistemology of Logic

1: We run into the problem of a priori knowledge of Logic. Once one actually knows about the 3 laws of logic, you know that they HAVE to be true. This belief is self-evident, and belongs under a special ****of beliefs called "Foundations" or "Properly basic belief". However, if Logic is an abstract description of the way the world behaves, then logic is no longer self-evident, but rather is known through inductive inference a posteriori. That however is quite absurd

2: We run into the problem of induction. If we dont know either induction or deduction a priori, then how on earth do we go about justifying induction without binding principles of reality? moreover, how can we POSSIBLY hope to justify deduction? Surely we cannot go about justifying deduction with induction, that is patently absurd!

I would have to say that the laws of logic are prescriptive principles that govern reality, which we know a priori, and which exist by the necessity of their own nature.

danwallacefan

Okay I've been thinking and thinking about this but I've honestly had difficulty. Your first point I understand but the only answer I can offer is to say that the laws of logic are not true independently of the physical universe and are therefore knowable only a posteriori  (which means they aren't a priori). You only say that the 3 laws HAVE to be true because you live within the physical universe where they are exemplified by the behaviour of reality.

If we did not have any experience of the universe then I don't see how it could be said that the logical laws would still be self-evident. Check out this video, object permanence seems like it ought to be self-evident but it isn't to an infant (possibly due to cognitive immaturity more than anything I will admit).

As for your second point well I'm just flat out confused by it. Perhaps my response to your first point addresses it in some way, I'm not sure you'll have to elaborate for me.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="7guns"]

Laws of Logics are metaphysical, hmmm ok.!!! Atheists don't believe in metaphysical. So, atheists are denying laws of logic!!! This is why TAG doesen't apply to agnostics, only atheists...

7guns

Wut. O_o

He did mention the agnostic part at 6:26 in the first video...

But it's unreasonable to claim that atheists don't believe in metaphysical, simply because many of them do.
Avatar image for 7guns
7guns

1449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#11 7guns
Member since 2006 • 1449 Posts
[QUOTE="7guns"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="7guns"]

Laws of Logics are metaphysical, hmmm ok.!!! Atheists don't believe in metaphysical. So, atheists are denying laws of logic!!! This is why TAG doesen't apply to agnostics, only atheists...

Funky_Llama

Wut. O_o

He did mention the agnostic part at 6:26 in the first video...

But it's unreasonable to claim that atheists don't believe in metaphysical, simply because many of them do.

He actually addressed the video to naturalist atheists or at-least that is what I think he meant at 6:26. He probably thought all atheists share the same naturalistic world view, or decided to conveniently overlook this flaw in his statement. He also took this opportunity to bash atheists, I mean, just get a taste of his enthusiasm at 0:25, 1:28, 7:44, 8:05 and again at 9:38 of the first video.......................

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
Hah, y'know in light of this topic my sig has all of a sudden become very ironic.
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#13 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
Hah, y'know in light of this topic my sig has all of a sudden become very ironic.domatron23
*enables sigs* I don't get it :x *disables sigs again*
Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Hah, y'know in light of this topic my sig has all of a sudden become very ironic.Funky_Llama
*enables sigs* I don't get it :x *disables sigs again*

Well according to the argument logical atheism is an oxymoron.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#15 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Hah, y'know in light of this topic my sig has all of a sudden become very ironic.domatron23

*enables sigs* I don't get it :x *disables sigs again*

Well according to the argument logical atheism is an oxymoron.

Oh, I geddit >_>
Avatar image for inoperativeRS
inoperativeRS

8844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#16 inoperativeRS
Member since 2004 • 8844 Posts
Interesting. This relates a lot to my own view, I hold the laws of the universe as a perfect being in themselves. However I also view them as completely natural results of our universe, not in any way metaphysical. Logical laws, just like all other fundamental laws of the universe, are dependent on the universe they exist in. The argument certainly makes a point for the flawlessness of the universe but fails in proving this flawlessness would mean a singular and eternal being exists IMO, since the existence of a universe is needed for it to exist (has not always existed) and its characteristics are dependent on the universe it exists in.