[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 37 KB, 820x622, 201ABD21-C8EC-40DB-944C-DA4C917C312E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18277495 No.18277495 [Reply] [Original]

What is the best book that argues in favor of the TAG (transcendental argument)? Specifically looking for a book that addresses the problems raised by Alex Malpass, especially when he brings up that fact that the presuppositionalist cannot demonstrate the “impossibility of the contrary” since there is practically an infinite amount of non-Christian worldviews. If you want to read Alex Malpass’s arguments in greater detail here: https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/the-problem-with-tag/ . You should also watch his debate with Jay Dyer since he seems to be the most popular presupositionalist on /lit/.

>> No.18277589

>>18277495
>God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).
>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.
>Therefore, God exists. If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.

>> No.18277613

>>18277495
That pic is awfully misleading

>> No.18277662

>>18277589
Here I am bopping along in a materialist universe without God and therefore without logic. Poof! Logic pops into existence. But that can't logically happen you decry. IT'S A NONLOGICAL MATERIALIST UNIVERSE YOU CHOAD. YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW LOGIC IN IT.

>> No.18277708

>>18277589
>If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate)
Does god command because it is good, or is it good just because god commands?

>> No.18277710

>>18277495
read carnap and shut the fuck up about your cringe metawetapataphysicschmisicks fucktard

>> No.18277734

god is real

>> No.18277835

>>18277708
Good comes from his nature which is inside of him.

>> No.18277838

>>18277495
>since there is practically an infinite amount of non-Christian worldviews
As long as God gets his foot in the door, Christians win, whether they can prove it's Christian or not.

>> No.18277841

>>18277495
dunno but I just got my TAGs (Teacher Assessed Grades) and I didnt have to do exams so chuffed about that really

>> No.18277861

>>18277495
I like how the picture literally describes your theory as a circular argument lmao. Anyways, why the fuck would God need to exist for logic to exist?

>> No.18277870

>>18277835
Whence come evil?

>> No.18277896

>>18277838
What TAG enthusiasts are missing is an argument that no other worldview besides a theistic one can account for logic. They've shown(in their own minds at least) that God can lead to logic but they haven't shown that nothing besides God(Christian or not) can lead to logic. Just saying you can't think of one is not a proof. And really this >>18277662 is about as reasonable as saying God did it.

>> No.18277916

>>18277662
>Here I am bopping along in a materialist universe without God and therefore without logic
Where? Certainly can't be this universe.

>> No.18277922

>>18277916
Why not? It started out as a nonlogical materialist universe then logic magiced into existence.

>> No.18277941

>>18277922
Because logic was always part of the universe and you were ignorant of it. "Popping into existence" is just you subjectively discovering logic for yourself.

>> No.18277951

>>18277941
But what makes your guess better than mine? Both account for the logical universe we live in.

>> No.18277961

>>18277951
It's not a guess. Mine accounts for the actual materialist universe. Yours is a cope reliant on magic, which is the concept of the materially impossible, and hence incompatible with the materialist universe you say you inhabit.

>> No.18277981

>>18277961
>God made logic
And you're saying I rely on magic? Besides there is nothing that prevents magic from happening in a nonlogical universe.

>> No.18278033

>>18277662
>>18277896
Existence and non-existence, and the transition (Becoming) between them, implies a logical universe prior to my popping into it. You're not very good at philosophy.
>Just saying you can't think of one is not a proof.
Of course. That's why we have countless, rigorously proven and defended arguments by highly intelligent minds such as Aristotle, Aquinas, and those who followed them.

>> No.18278059

>>18278033
>Existence and non-existence, and the transition (Becoming) between them, implies a logical universe prior to my popping into it.
How does it imply it? Is it a logical implication? Hmmmmmm?

>Of course. That's why we have countless, rigorously proven and defended arguments by highly intelligent minds such as Aristotle, Aquinas, and those who followed them.
You don't even follow the line of argument there. I'm saying that just because you can't think of a proof of the existence of logic WITHOUT God doesn't mean there isn't one.

>> No.18278077

>>18277589
Someone didn't read Kant.

>> No.18278090

>>18278059
>How does it imply it?
Are you asking me how "popping into existence" implies non-existence and existence? If you can't understand what that phrase ("into existence") even means, then I cannot help you.
>You don't even follow the line of argument there.
Yes I do. God is necessarily the only proof, because logic is pure intelligence, and any intelligence responsible for universal logic would have to be, by definition, THE highest intelligence. The only dispute that can be made, at this point (without further argumentation), is whether or not that intelligence is pantheistic or ultimately transcendent, or both. This is what I mean by Christians having their foot in the door. Again, you don't seem to be very philosophically literate. If you were clever, you'd attack these arguments from the Kantian or Humean angle, because these are the most linguistically obscure and difficult for rational philosophers to root out.

>> No.18278112

>>18278090
>Are you asking me how "popping into existence" implies non-existence and existence?
I'm saying that is a logical implication.

>Yes I do. God is necessarily the only proof, because logic is pure intelligence, and any intelligence responsible for universal logic would have to be, by definition, THE highest intelligence
And this is saying the dumb part out loud. Logic is not the "highest intelligence". This is just some ridiculous christcuck mysticism

>> No.18278144

Why can't I just say that logic is a feature of the subjects access to objects not objects themselves and write God out the equation completely?

>> No.18278171

I think logic is basically just a convention of language not some kind of transcendent rule.

>> No.18278271

>>18278112
>I'm saying that is a logical implication.
It's not an implication, it's a presupposition. Existence, of any sort, is predicated upon a binary logical law. The fact that you have even popped into existence to begin with is predicated upon logical laws being universal enough to account for both states, non-existence and existence.
>Logic is not the "highest intelligence".
Read my post again, and you'll find that is not what I stated. Reading comprehension is essential here, which is why most people fail at real philosophy.

>> No.18278327

I think you can coherently use logic to say that logic doesn't work.

Logic works + Logic says it doesn't work = Impossible, this means Logic doesn't work as it is self-reporting its own status incorrectly, therefore it cannot be correct.

If logic says it doesn't work, then it doesn't work.

>> No.18278519

>>18277710
>2021
>carnap
KEK I would bet my balls you haven't read him

>> No.18278564

This is a real headscratcher

>> No.18278632

>>18277589
Holy shit Dyer fags need to get the fuck off this board.

>> No.18278706

>>18277495
Alex Malpass's arguments remain undefeated.

>> No.18278711

>>18277870
from your question

>> No.18278712

>>18278706

>>18278271
>God is necessarily the only proof, because logic is pure intelligence, and any intelligence responsible for universal logic would have to be, by definition, THE highest intelligence.
Defeated by the venerable theologians of 4chan.

>> No.18278721

>>18278712
Whoops meant >>18278090

>> No.18278756

>>18278711
Tell me, can you have hot without cold? up without down? big, small? Yet here you are saying that I was able to create evil; necessarily I must also create good. So much for your god.

>> No.18278759

>>18278756
yeah and he's your God too

>> No.18278768

>>18278759
Do you have a source to back up that statement?

>> No.18278773

>>18278768
The Bible

>> No.18278779

>>18278773
And has that been peer-reviewed?

>> No.18278784

>>18278779
You're going to hell

>> No.18278789

>>18278784
I'm going to hell? On what grounds?

>> No.18278794

>>18277589
>God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).

why

>> No.18278800

>>18278789
On the grounds of being a faggot. Who cares if the TAG is fake the only reason someone would act like they don't believe in God is if they wanted to be a whore without guilt.

>> No.18278808

>>18278800
sounds like 'god' is just a reification of the heuristic we've developed to help us impose order on an unordered world

>> No.18278813

>>18278800
Why does hell exist in the first place? In order not to teach me not to be a so-called whore? Clearly not, because teaching only takes a certain amount of time, yet the abrahamics always promise that damnation is eternal.

>> No.18278818

>>18278813
In order TO*

>> No.18278851

>>18278773
Why should I accept that the Bible is true?

>> No.18278856

>>18278800
Kek nice adhom

>> No.18278886

>>18278808
>reification
Reification is just a fancy term for admitting you can't into real philosophy.
>unordered world
If that were true we would never have existed to begin with.

>> No.18278915

>>18278886
>If that were true we would never have existed to begin with.

why? emergent complexity is common in the world, the only difference with humans is that the process is more obscure and complex than what you see among molecules or cells. unless you assume that the existence of emergence is a priori evidence of God, which is stupid, then I don't see how this proves anything

>> No.18279367

>>18278851
>Why should I accept that the Bible is true?
Because you know it's true.

>> No.18279425

>>18277495
Transcendental argument for what? That time and space are our necessary forms of sensibility? Be more specific

>> No.18279457

>>18277835
How can it be inside him if god transcends space?

>> No.18279468

>>18279367
How do you know that the bible is true?

>> No.18279475

>>18279425
God
>>18279468
The same way you do. Revelation from God.

>> No.18279737

>>18279475
>The same way you do. Revelation from God.
Retarded argument.

>> No.18279819

>>18278779
Uhm yeah the Church fathers peer reviewed it and had a council. LMAO
>>18278813
Hell doesn't punish you. Hell just is what happens when you willingly cut your self off from the branch your sitting on(which is God btw). God would want you to go to heaven and be resurrected, but If you rather want to suffer so that others can suffer aswell, then that's on you.
>>18279367
By reading the lives of saints and talking to people who follow Christ's teachings and contrasting that with Poo religion street shitters and atheists and their state of soul. Christ claims to be the son of God and not a mere prophet which means that the truth is in his actions and spirit as much as in his words. But yeah I think there is a leap of faith in accepting any belief system desu

>> No.18279827

>>18278915
>emergent complexity is common in the world
Emergent complexity is dependent upon a priori logical rules which transcend the human mind (Divine Simplicity). This nullifies your belief about an "inherently unordered world"

>> No.18279848

>Why can't I just say...
Babies first philosophy thread? The way atheists treat philosophical discussion like you can just come up with random shit and it has the same status as a fully thought out logical sequence of arguments is absurd.

>> No.18279900

>>18278779
>Has the Word of God been peer reviewed
The sheer hubris

>> No.18280011

>>18277495
You can be a platonist about abstract objects/entities without being a theist.

Nominalism/Platonism debate does not map directly onto atheist/theist, it doesn’t seem to me to map at all.

>> No.18280124

>>18279425
The whole TAG thing is pretty strange to me given that Kant employs transcendental arguments in the First Critique (what are the necessary conditions for experience, etc) but would clearly reject transcendental arguments for the existence of God