Logical absolutes are dependent on god

AbbreviationsTAG (Pro’s argument) - the Transcendental argument for the existence of GodTANG - the Transcendental argument for the non-existence of GodLA - Logical absolutes (laws)TAGP1 - Logical absolutes existP2 - Anything that exists must be physical or conceptualP3 - logical absolutes are not physicalC - Therefore they are conceptualGiven that LA are conceptual they must come from a mind, which is transcendent and absolute. And this we call God.Attacking P1 (1)Before I begin tackling the argument, such as it is, from Pro, 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.Clearly, this distinction impacts TAG profoundly. 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, and all things that exist. LA are therefore not things which exist, with a nature, but the nature of things. In light of this, P1 makes no sense, as well as being fallacious.Attacking P2Anything that exists must be conceptual or physicalHere, we see Pro gives us 2 options for LA. So inept is this premise however, that if it’s true, it actually disproves God as follows:P1 - Anything that exists must be physical or conceptual (Pro’s premise)P2 - God is neither physical nor conceptualC - God does not exist.Now, Pro has a choice. First he either falsifies his own premise, and backtracks away from such a claim, in which case, TAG fails, or he argues that God is either physical or conceptual. Clearly, God can’t be physical (according to Pro’s logic), because he has a “transcendent mind”. As for conceptual, Pro clearly isn’t arguing for God as an idea of the mind, but as an ontological entity with particular properties. Also, even if there is the possibility of a third option, not only shows that Pro commits the fallacy of false dichotomy, but he would have to restructure TAG, because it tries to show LA are conceptual merely by rubbishing the only alternative (that they are physical). But if there are more alternatives, such a strategy cannot deduce the right answer, until Pro eliminates ALL alternatives. As such, we have reasons to reject his second premise.3 General Criticisms of TAGMore generally, TAG can be criticised thus:Unjustified argumentationMy first criticism is something which should be apparent to all who read Pro’s post. His argument is very leanly supported. Indeed, the most crucial premise of the argument (P1) is neither explained nor supported at all, and neither is P2. All Pro does is very quickly sketch out why LA are transcendent and conceptual, without even anticipating any objections to his assertions. Fallacy of divisionPro argues that because LA’s are transcendent, absolute, and so forth that we can conclude that they came from an absolute, transcendent mind. But clearly this isn’t sound reasoning. 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 atomsAtoms are invisibleTherefore, 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.The futility of TAGThe 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. Incidentally, Pro also begs the question by assuming that I have no "reason for logic".TANG (2)P1 - If God's nature is bound by LA, He cannot account for LA.P2 - God's nature is bound by LAC - God cannot account for LA.Clearly, if God is to be considered logically consistent, then He has to conform to LA. If God's nature is bound thus, & he cannot change it (God cannot be both God & not God at the same time for example), then not only are LA still unaccounted for, but it would seem God cannot be their source, as He Himself is as bound by them through His own nature as anything else. Conclusion - God cannot account for LA. LA are still unaccounted for. If God therefore is to account for LA, then He can't exist.Sources(1) Theoretical Bullsh!t youtube videos "Slick Logic" and "Matt/Matt" series(2) http://www.infidels.org...