Logic Presupposes God: a Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

= = = Refuting Tag = = = 1. The fallacies of TAG (1) The first thing, and perhaps the most important thing to establish is a very clear distinction between LA as logical concepts, and LA as the nature of existence . Now conceptual LA are the statements of logic themselves; the symbols, language, and framework. Now clearly these concepts are contingent not just upon human minds but on particular persons throughout history (mainly Aristotle), and do not exist without a sentient mind which follows our linguistic process to conceive of them. They are always conceptual by nature and are used as the founding principles of logic. Now, obviously accounting for these would require a historical approach, not a philosophical one , so TAG must refer to LA as laws which govern the nature of existence. LA as the nature of existence would be what statements like they law of identity REFER to (that something is what it is, and not what is not) - the consistency of existence to behave in a particular way. Now, clearly the nature of existence is not contingent upon anything, it behaves the way it does regardless of what anyone thinks or does, so is transcendent, and does so seemingly in all time and places. But crucially, it is not conceptual. We can conceive of it, but the statements we use (the logical laws) are not laws which govern the universe, but symbols we use to the way things consistently behave - the nature of existence. The laws are conceptual; what they refer to is not (in the same way as the word "apple" is conceptual, but what it refers to is not). To conflate the conceptual absolutes with the existent absolutes is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. Other fallacies of TAG include the fallacy of division, seen here when Pro says this: " But looking at the all the properties that LA have it would be follow that something with all those properties is the ground for them. A necessarily existent immaterial, non-spatial, transcendent, absolute mind . . . and this everyone understands to be God." This blatantly commits the fallacy of division by concluding that the properties of the absolutes reflect the source of them (God). Consider this: All humans are made up of atoms Atoms are invisible Therefore, all humans are invisible. TAG fails in the exact same way in its crucial shift from the existence of logical absolutes, to the source of these absolutes (an absolute, transcendent mind). The nature of LA tells us nothing of the properties of their source. But, there's more. TAG is essentially an argument from ignorance. I think it obvious to anyone familiar with TAG that the theist cannot account for logical absolutes, but simply shifts the problem down the line, and always seems to never get the accounting of LA. God is said to account for them, but how? Pro ended the ontology section with no real reference to how these where accounted for, just an implication of something which is itself unaccounted for (God's nature), such is the predicament of the TAG enthusiast. 2. The futility of TAG The most popular rebuttal to TAG is that logical laws are axioms which assume their own truth. Even Kant agreed that denying God's existence is in no way contradictory, while denying logic is. But this point can be taken slightly further. The stated aim of TAG - to account for logical absolutes, is the first problem, because it is impossible to account for them without implicitly assuming them to be true and even using them in pretty much every way throughout the argument. The problem can be simplified thus: In order to account for LA (the stated goal of the TAG argument), one must first define what these are. But wait! Defining something REQUIRES ASSUMING that the so-called logical absolutes are true. In order to define something, we must assume the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. SO EVEN DEFINING LOGICAL ABSOLUTES ASSUMES THAT LOGICAL ABSOLUTES EXIST!!! Which is what the argument is supposed to conclude, not assume! Thus, as soon as we try to account for logical absolutes, we commit the fallacy of begging the question, because it is only by assuming that logic absolutes can be accounted for that the argument can even make sense and have a stated purpose. The theist faces a kind of Euthyphro dilemma: either he commits said fallacy or he tries to account for logic and absolutes without the law of identity and non-contradiction. Just to be perhaps a bit more clear, here's a syllogism below: P1 - In order to account for LA, a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition is to define LA. P2 - To define LA, one has to assume that the law of identity is true. C - In order to account for LA, one has to assume that the law of identity is true. The conclusion then is that a necessary condition to account for LA is to assume that the law of identity is true, thus begging the question, which is why identifying LA as anything other than axioms runs into tremendous problems, and, so TAG seems doomed to circularity. The flaws of TAG - Dealing with P2 (2) Now obviously what was said above will have an impact on how we answer the challenge. So, do logical laws "exist"? No. This is a categorical error, akin to asking what colour justice is, or what kind of fruit a triangle is. What the law of identity refers to is not something that exists, but the NATURE of existence. Indeed Pro tacitly supports this by agreeing that something which is logically inconsistent cannot exist. Why not? Because all things that exist and that could exist must be consistent with the nature of existence. If they are not, then they don't and could not exist. To account for this with as LA existing, as Pro does, firstly anthropomorphises the nature of existence and secondly leads to a greater problem: a regression of laws - e.g. what governs the law of identity to ensure that it is what it is and not something else? If God (or his Nature) what governs this, and so on, re-emphasising the point made in 2 - the futility of TAG. Epistemology Assuming references to logic as axioms does not work, then all we can do is state that the LA as reflections of the nature of reality have been attested to many times, and cannot conceivably be falsified, in the same way that that Pythagoras' theorem is always is vindicated. Incidentally, the downgrading of absolutes is far more of a problem of the proponent of TAG - this being their vehicle to theism. Pro states that a Christian God wouldn't suffer these objections, and that other options would. Firstly, Pro is essentially excluding Islam and other religions when these seem viable options for the conclusion TAG affirms, but also, how is the Christian to know what these LA are. They don't appear in scripture, they don't appear in most apologetics (past and present), and things like revelation are fraught with dangers, so no benefit is had for the Christian. = = = TANG = = = TANG attempts to deal with P1 of Pro's argument, and to defeat TAG on its own terms. If God's nature is the source of LA (TAG), could anything exist which is contrary to God's nature? Now clearly the answer should be no, because if something contradicts, say, the law of identity, it doesn't and could not exist. But if God's nature is the source for LA, then nothing which currently exists should be antithetical to God's nature. Yet, there exists evil, liars, and other things which are contrary to God's nature. Indeed, everything within the spatio-temporal framework exists as contrary to God's nature. Conclusion - God's nature cannot account for LA. Another problem is that God himself seems to be held hostage to LA: If God's nature must be logically consistent in order to exist (which Pro acknowledges), then He can no more account for LA than anything else which is bound by them. = = = Sources = = = (1) (2) Theoretical Bullsh!t youtube videos "Slick Logic" and "Matt/Matt" series