Talk:Transcendental argument for the existence of God

message: An anon added an objection about the assumption that man was created by God and equipped with standards of morality as well as a qualification in the preceding paragraphs, the latter of which I deleted because it was unnecessary within the context (of course the Christian worldview assumes man was created by God). I don't see much new in the objection because it seems to be implicit in the more general objection that one can't assume the Christian worldview -- which is really just an argument in favor of neutrality and against all types of transcendental arguments. So, we can either leave the objection (or perhaps generalize it a bit) and supply an answer, or we can delete the objection. Any thoughts? --Flex 14:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it until we can get more elaboration. --Flex 20:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections 

message: The article states that TAG provides tests to verify the soundness of a worldview, but (as someone pointed out earlier) it does not say how Christianity has passed these tests, and how others have failed. This last part is crucial to the validity of TAG, so I think details should be provided. Also, the article lacks references. ElTchanggo 22:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for expansion (November 2005) 

message: What is the argument?  This article needs better structure.  Begin with a statement of the argument.  Follow with a brief and simple illustrative example.  Establish the argument first, then discuss details.  07:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarity and organization (November 2005) 

message: I've tagged this article as badly needing some... I'm afraid it's attrociously argued, and unclearly written to boot. I think persuasive TAGs can be made (though imho they ultimately fail), but they're certainly not found here! Thomas Ash 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. (Except the parenthetical statement.) This article lacks structure, and much of what it has is irrelevant, IMO. At the moment its just various thoughts about TAG strung together in no meaningful order. I propose that this article do the following, and in the following order. (sorry about the ugly formatting; I'm new to editing at wikipedia)
1. Define TAG
2. mention its history
3. discuss its objective - impossibility of the contrary, indirect proof, Van Til's well-known analogy of child slapping her dad in the face only because he can hold her on his knee in the first place
4. give formulations of its various forms - induction, morality, logic
5. list objections and responses
"a theistic argument, not a Christian argument" (response: true---theists deal with one another in other ways, nevertheless TAG is still a serious argument against non-theism)
"TANG" - critics claim that TANG creates a strawman God with unbiblical attributes (http://www.carm.org/atheism/trans_refuted.htm)
"TAG is a veiled version of the argument from ignorance" - TAG doesn't merely posit that non-Christians 'don't know' how to account for induction, morality, logic, etc (as though the answer hasn't yet been discovered but might one day), but it makes the case that it is entirely impossible for the non-Christian to account for these things outside of God
6. links
The article accomplishes some of this, but for the most part it is messy and doesn't do TAG justice. For example, "The argument" looks like its trying to argue for induction, but must better formulations exist. I think the TAG induction version as it relates to science is far more effective, and easier to understand. Also, I think quotes from the works of Van Til, Bahnsen, Butler, or Frame would bolster the quality of this article. 
If what I have written is agreed upon as a good plan for improving the article, let me know and perhaps I can find time to do some of the work. Until then, I think an outline like I have proposed should be followed. Razzendahcuben 19:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I've majorly cleaned up the article. I didn't cover all of the requests above, but I think I got it to such a point where the cleanup request can be removed. Let me know, and I'll remove the cleaup template. --MonkeeSage 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did a really good job. Some day I'll try to work on it more, maybe once school gets out. You mentioned the two worldview tests as internal consistency and external conformity. External conformity is not a test mentioned by Butler, at least in some .mp3 lectures I heard. Instead, he mentions arbitrariness. If a person's justification of the truth of the core tenets of their worldview is arbitrary, then the worldview should be rejected. As for external conformity---doesn't that make metaphysical assumptions right off the bat? Razzendahcuben 01:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Is this at all similar to TAG? 
P: God
G: Reality
	 
Assume there is no God. If there is no God, there can be no proof. If there is no proof, there can be no reality. 
If there is no God, there can be no proof because you can’t prove anything without making claims. You can’t claim anything without making assumptions. Assumptions are not consistent with the nature of proof. Therefore, there can be no proof.
If there is no proof, there can be no reality. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics both show that reality is defined by perception. Since perception is defined by belief and belief is defined by proof, there can’t be adequate reality. Also, there can be no inadequate reality because reality is an absolute concept. 
Since there is reality, God must exist. If there is a God, then you can make claims without making assumptions, which means there can be proof, and therefore reality. (The definition of God is Inherent Truth. This is a good definition of God because if you prove something using an inherent Truth, all of reality is derived from that Truth, which means that the Truth is omnipotent.)
:You have described TAG up to the point where you begin talking about science, after that you're merely making suggestions about what constitutes reality. TAG obeys modus tollens. If P, then Q. Not Q, therefore Not P. This is what you have described in saying, Not God, therefore no reality. But there is reality, therefore not not God. (Therefore God) I can't really say that the other stuff you said is true. Using science to define God is basically meaningless because, according to TAG, science presupposes God. Razzendahcuben 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There does seem to be presumptions made with this TAG argument.  Perhaps someone could define "proof" in the context that it applies here.  If proof above refers to evidence, then stating that if there is no God, there can be no evidence [of God], is logical.  However, stating that if there is no evidence there can be no reality, makes no sense (to me).  Is the TAG argument referring to evidence of God in particular, or evidence of anything?  While evidence of God may be impossible to find, evidence definitely exists of other things (like these words are evidence I posted a message.)  Where's the part in the TAG argument that demonstrates that reality is reliant on a God creating it? Gigantibyte (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is This a TAG? 

message: It is not standard in Wikipedia to list criticisms of criticisms, else articles would extend indefinitely as proponents of each view present more and more counter-arguments. I've commented out the section, pending consensus on whether it should stay. Ilkali (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how showing both sides is a problem. This article is specifically about an argument, so it seems proper to list the argument, criticisms of the argument, and responses to the criticism. And if the responses are documented from WP:RS sources (i.e., WP:NOR, WP:V), then they are not "POV" in the WP:POV sense. In fact, "[POVs] are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects". I think it would be somewhat biased to leave out published responses to criticism and leave in published criticisms. Obviously, there is a limit after which both sides have had sufficient room to express their POVs, and no new information is being introduced; but I don't think the responses to criticism section approaches that limit. Being WP:BOLD and uncommenting. » MonkeeSage « 11:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Defenses of the TAG" 

message: I have read this article three times and I still do not know what the transcendental argument is. Someone needs to spell it out in numbered steps, like all the other arguments for the existence of God. In addition, abbreviating it as 'TAG' does not look very encyclopaedic. If abbreviations are necessary, which I do not believe they are on Wikipedia, at least follow convention, and change it to 'T.A.G.' --203.214.145.227 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical 

message: As has been mentioned by someone else, I have to agree that I find a distinct lack of an actual concrete example of a TAG argument. As far as I can tell, though I'd like to verify with an example, I have no problem with the concept of TAG and the validity of it should one have an actual argument that satisfies the requirements.
However, after having read the article several times, I don't see any concrete example. I see the general description, and there are various attributes and related information about the arguments, but there is no clearly stated concrete argument.
What *is* a common or representative actual TAG argument proposed by christian apologists?
Googling I can find some stuff, but I have no concept of what the most commonly touted argument would be.
--Scode (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the argument itself is conspicuously absent. 1Z (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual example argument seemingly missing 

message: This article is so muddled, it's hardly coherent.  From improper arguments for and against, the lack of an actual full example of TAG, and some really superfluous and redundant stuff.  I have fixed some of it tonight, but there are some things that really need to be condensed and removed, and other things added.  It is really hard to follow as it sits, and I will get back to more later when I have more time.  PoDuck (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs some major attention 

message: I agree with Atrocious above.  This is not close to WP standards.
I'd also like to suggest that a rewrite include a mention that animals exhibit aspects of morality including reciprocity, fairness, harm mitigation, etc.  There is a biological basis for these traits and they are obviously evolutionarily adaptive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.214.39 (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Look as noted above, the Transcendental Argument is not an active argument in modern philosophy, it was something developed by Kant and other 19th century philosophers. These philosophers were heavily biased towards Christianity, and this article accurately reflects their bias. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia supports their bias any more than our articles on Hitler's anti-semitism endorse hating Jews. As far as your comments about animal morality, well if there is a modern philosopher attempting to resurrect this argument using that sort of reasoning then by all means supply references to their work and we'll include it. Manning (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Personal aversion to the TAG argument or its conclusions should not be conflated with good editing practices. This argument should be represented honestly, as it has been put forward by its proponents historically, not in some watered-down way that makes concessions to the sensibilities of modern readers. That's not how wikipedia works. Ischus (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an article 

message: Someone had added a significant amount of text to the criticism section which merely made the article incoherent and/or offensive. Here is the diff of my edits. Much of the text was placed under the heading 'Criticism" and was inherently Straw man in its nature. I tried to clean it up but ended up just excising it as it couldn't be saved. Manning (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large section removed 

message: Someone seems determined to keep putting in a "criticism of criticism" section. This is not general procedure here, and anyway, the text merely repeated what had been said earlier - that this argument is just as weak when rephrased from an atheistic point of view.
If there is something strong enough to merit inclusion, then it should be placed in the main discussion section. Manning (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. We have an argument, we have a criticism of the argument. That's ALL that is needed - anything beyond that is POV pushing. The "argument" used in that section is just TAG rephrased anyway, this time using an unverifiable assertion about the origin of knowledge. Manning (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

text: TAG presupposes its conclusion. So whatever premise you choose, TAG will "prove" the conclusion. Hence you can rephrase it to claim God exists, that God doesn't exist, that all donkeys are pink, or really anything you want. This is why it is regarded as a logically worthless argument. However saying TAG is a worthless argument has no bearing on the question of whether God exists or doesn't exist. Manning (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another section removed 

message: Seriously I can do this all day. The latest excision is some total garbage about how this flaky argument somehow relates to objective morality.  TAG has nothing to do with objective morality, those arguments are best kept to the relevant article. 
In case the article didn't make it sufficiently clear, TAG is a very flaky argument - it presupposes it's conclusion so it is logically flawed (irreparably). It is equally useless at proving the existence, or the non-existence of God, or anything else for that matter. 
The discussion of objective morality is a very interesting one, certainly. But it has got nothing to do with TAG, hence it was excised. Manning (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More stuff removed 

message: Sorry, but this has been an argument used in support of Hinduism for thousands of years before Christianity existed. Moreover, it is vital that for this argument to be true, the theological model expounded by it must be universally communicated (for it presupposes a being capable of universal communication). And yet, for every religion which has existed in human history, hundreds of millions have lived and died without ever hearing of it. Since no deity has proved competent to communicate a message universally, no deity lives up to the initial premise of this argument. Except, naturally, the Creator described in Deism (and variations such as Pandeism) whose means of communication is the existence of natural order and universal logic itself. Because these aspects are indeed universally communicated -- not simply to humans, but to intelligent life wherever it may exist in our Universe-- it is this Creator and this one alone whose existence is proved by this argument. And of all the faiths of Earth, remarkably that which most resembles this model is indeed Hinduism (though its teachings on this point have been much distorted in their misreporting outside of areas where Hinduism predominates). DeistCosmos (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many presuppositions in this wall of text... go drink some chai, pajeet 212.39.89.136 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hinduism]] 

message: The criticism section of the article states:
"The chief criticism of all formulations of the TAG revolve around its premise that "without a god, knowledge cannot exist". While acceptance of this premise can lead to the conclusion that a god must exist, the argument itself provides no demonstrated necessity to accept the premise."
This is inaccurate... in reality the argument states that truth itself is a transcendent quality, and because knowledge itself is defined as a "well justified true belief", that knowledge itself is impossible without truth itself.
So the criticism actually doesn't address the argument.
"Martin (1997) suggested the invalidity of this assertion when he reformulated the TAG as the 'Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God' starting with the negation of TAG's premise, namely, that 'the existence of knowledge presupposes the non-existence of God'[2]"
This doesn't belong.... it literally just stated that "some guy once suggested that the argument was wrong"... so what?
Also.. the existence of knowledge does not presuppose the non-existence of God.... just because someone can propose a negation does not in any way suggest that the negation of a statement is in any way logically valid... and if it were logically valid, he would have to defend that notion of it being logically valid, which this short comment of the criticism does not do.
This criticism section should either be expanded greatly or removed completely.
162.226.64.170 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the criticism paragraph. The claim it makes was not cited, and appeared to be editorializing by someone who simply dislikes the TAG argument. I propose a re-write that cites actual scholars in this field and gives both criticism and response from proponents side-by-side. Ischus (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the Criticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Transcendental argument for the existence of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211120552/http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/index.shtml to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/index.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211120630/http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-wilson/index.shtml to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-wilson/index.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed this entire section. I believe that this section inherently represents a WP:POV violation. The arguments were presented with a tiny "disclaimer" ("presented for consideration"). However, they were presented almost entirely without any citation. They included clearly non-neutral statements like "it is interesting that..." followed by a Bible verse. As encyclopedia, Wikipedia should give a representation of what philosophical arguments are. We are not in the business of trying to convince readers that the arguments are true or not. BirdValiant (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterarguments to counterarguments 

message: Can you not find a more scholarly source for the argument in reception than the "Friendly Atheist" page? Goose6.0 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 6 credibility. 

message: I've flagged this as needing attention from an expert as it seems to be missing most of the relevant philosophical debate - I find it odd that we're covering the transcendental argument in a modern sense without even mentioning Strawson or Stroud. Instead we have "Atheist, Friendly" and "Examined, Cross". :) - Bilby (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert needed 

message: The reception section is just some guy making laughably bad criticisms of the TAG, not citing actual philosophers who have responded to it. The completeness and soundness theorems have nothing whatsoever to do with the epistemic justification of the laws of logic; they just prove that certain properties are true in the first-order predicate calculus, *given* a metalogical system that itself presupposes and deploys the laws of classical logic. Likewise, the existence of multiple proposed systems of NORMATIVE ethics does not disprove the claim that any given system of normative ethics must presuppose a meta-ethical grounding, which is what presuppositionalists are claiming. And non-classical logics are just languages -- axiomatic alternatives to the classical predicate calculus. They're still evaluated according to classical metalogic.
I join the last commenter in recommending a full rewrite by a competent philosopher. Josh Burns (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section is embarrassingly bad