A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God May 1, 2017 Bob Seidensticker Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Think about God creating arithmetic for a moment. The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG for short) demands a certain sardonic respect due to its sheer ambition. Martin is wrong in this assumption, and thus by admitting that if the transcendental argument is true the atheist would be inconsistent, he shows that this is a positive proof for the Christian worldview. 1 The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form below, goes as follows: Logical absolutes exist. Therefore, God exists. If God is bound by logic, logic isn’t arbitrary. Is it fixed? This page was last edited on 29 June 2020, at 16:13. Also, send me the Nonreligious Newsletter. The TAG argument Dr. James Anderson used in the video, using the laws of logic, was similiar to a type of a priori ontological argument and went something along the lines of: The question is ill-formed. The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a supreme being and that God must therefore be the source of logic and morals. Prior exemplars of sucharguments may perhaps by claimed, such as Aristotle’s proof of theprinciple of non-contradiction (see Metaphysics1005… The answer must first of all must be the existence of the God of Scripture. It recently appeared on the Internet and was replied to by John Frame in his paper, "A Brief Response to … THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF VAN TIL’S TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT: A RESPONSE TO JOHN FRAME Michael H. Warren, Jr. Last revised 9/19/2015 Table of Contents Page I. ” I am a subscriber to Rationality Rules and there are many good videos where he explains the serious problems with a number of arguments, particularly for the existence of “God.” See also: Do Atheists Borrow From the Christian Worldview? TAG is a deist argument. A Parable. In our universe, the Law of Noncontradiction tells us that X can’t be the same thing as not-X. First, and this is a minor point, I only “propose” that transcendental argument in the sense that I suggest a form which it may take, not that I endorse it. No honest seeker of the truth says, “I don’t know what causes this thing … so therefore I do know! Anthony C. Genova, "Transcendental Form," Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 11 (1980): 25-34. In other words, because Goddidit is claimed to be the answer to every question in epistemology, God necessarily exists. A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God. Furthermore, the existence of theorems like Goedel's completeness theorem and the soundness theorems for classical logic provide justification for some logic systems like classical propositional logic without using any god hypotheses thus contradicting the first premise of the argument. In a godless universe, something might be a rock and not-a-rock. A transcendental argument generally tries to prove that if X is a necessary precondition for Y, then if Y does exist then it follows that X must exist by necessity. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God. But the apologist’s argument tells us that, without God, logic is up for grabs. 4. (To see the Christian case for this argument, read the selection from my book Cross Examined in an earlier post.). 2. ", "Responding to the Most Common Arguments for God's Existence", "A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (3 of 3)", "Non-classical Logics: Theory, Applications and Tools", Responses to Atheist Philosopher, Michael Martin, Derrida, Van Til and the Metaphysics of Postmodernism, The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, Relationship between religion and science, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God&oldid=965133728, Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from September 2010, Articles with unsourced statements from January 2020, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God Michael Martin [This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]. This argument is of particular interest to me because I was introduced to it in a radio interview—not the best place for careful study and contemplation before stating one’s intellectual position—but more on that later. Although Immanuel Kant rarely uses the term ‘transcendentalargument’, and when he does it is not in our current sense (cf.Hookway 1999: 180 n. 8), he nonetheless speaks frequently of‘transcendental deductions’, ‘transcendentalexpositions’, and ‘transcendental proofs’, whichroughly speaking have the force of what is today meant by‘transcendental argument’. And now that we know that God exists, we can explain why the laws of logic exist. No Dilemma for the Proponent of the Transcendental Argument: A Response to David Reiter James N. Anderson David Reiter has recently argued that presuppositionalists who champion the transcendental argument for God’s existence (“TAG”) face a dilemma: depending on what conclusion the Hi Chris, Thanks for engaging my paper, it truly is an honor. The Theistic Preconditions of Knowledge (2006) — an argument that human knowledge presupposes the existence of God. The final version may include changes not present in this version. If I don’t accept that God can have no flaws and/or that nonexistence is a flaw, I’ve defeated the ontological argument. Martin makes three separate arguments: . Hence, one can agree that the transcendental argument proper disproves materialism but still not believe in the Christian God. Next, notice that we’ve never gotten physics from Christianity before. by Matt Slick. There's Nothing Supernatural About Evangelism. Avoiding logical puzzles invalidates TAG, Many apologists dodge the “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” puzzle by saying that God can’t do anything illogical (for example, here and here)—he can’t make an impossibly heavy rock, a square circle, a married bachelor, and so on. In its full form, it claims that logic (and by extension rationality, sense, morality and any argumentation at all) can only exist if the Christian God does. [6] Another issue pointed out is that it's not needed to have a god to have logic or morality.