TAG, You're Out

"An essay deconstructing and debunking a lesser-known argument for God's existence."

The subject of this essay is to critique the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, which is just another lame argument in the Christian arsenal that doesn't take much to demolish when one looks it over a couple of times. In fact, I think it's a cruel irony in its own right for the Christian to come up with an argument with the initials of TAG. They get to tag us with a bit of confusion at first, but then we get to tag them back with a heavy dose of rationality.

 

Before I start, I want to be honest with the atheists who read this essay. I am of the position that Christians are rational beings capable of giving reasons for believing in their God quite easily. I personally believe that all humans are not stupid apes incapable of being reasoned beings. If Christians in the past could articulate their case in any arena, then it is quite fair to believe that they are capable of logical critique as well.

And now for the critique.

 

The transcendental argument for the existence of God is as follows...

 

1) An objective premise is immaterial.

 

2) Therefore an immaterial presence must underlie that premise.

 

3) Therefore that immaterial premise must be God.

Granted, that is not the typical formulation of the argument, but this appears to be the boilerplate standard that the argument follows.

 

The first step of the argument is considered to be an empty blank where anything considered to be objective can be placed to fill the need. In most cases, apologists put forth the qualifier that the "laws of logic" are "objective" (in other cases I have read that the laws of science, mathematics, and even thought itself is the choice of objectification). The flaw in this part of the argument is that there are set of laws that are somehow totally objective. Which laws of logic are we talking about here? Are we talking about the basic ones that are dubbed "classical logic"? There are several classical logics like Aristotle's Organon, Nagarjuna's tetralemma, and Avicenna's temporal modal logic. These three logical systems came from very distinct cultures and each system would likely have been deemed objective within that cultural context. But since these logical systems are just one of many, how can somebody really say that there is one set of logical laws that underlies the entirety of human thought? Furthermore, if the laws of logic are objective, why are there different logical systems for different disciplines of study? Do these logical systems also receive the title of "objective"? Since the process of thinking correctly requires several different sets of rules for different disciplines, to say that one particular logical system underlies everything (as is implied by the qualifier "objective") is confusing and even misleading. Therefore, it is up the apologists presenting the claim that the "laws of logic are objective" to prove the opponent that this claim is firmly based before moving forward.

 

The second step of the argument is a claim of implication. On the surface, I find this claim almost truthful. There is no way to prove something totally immaterial considering that we live in a material realm. Thoughts and axiomatic tenets are alive in a realm called the "intellect". At the same time, it seems rather disingenuous to me that someone would ponder an immaterial being to be the source of all intellectual processes. To be living in a material sense requires processes that can be observed, tested and measured. Christians may object to this notion by bringing up notions of "The Living Word", "The Living Christ" and "The Breathing Word", which are serious contradictions in terms outside of the Christian context. The Christian could contend that the decent actions of believers observed by others are exemplars of these ideas. Yet, reasons for such actions can be derived from material sources. If a Christian acts decently, an observer could say that the action could have been done because of the social contract between all humans. In short, a living being must conceive of something immaterial, not the other way around.

 

Since I am of the opinion that the prior steps are fallacious on their own merits, then the third step implicitly falls away. But, if I am incorrect in my prior assertions, then it is possible that the third step could be correct. This still presents a problem for the Christian apologist. The Christian worldview asserts that it is correct and that all others are flawed. What if a "flawed" theistic worldview used the same argument? Doesn't that open the door to making the "God" part of the third step an open, empty blank? I think so because there are several others competing deities that could be fit into that place. I could insert Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Odin or whoever else that could justify an opponent's worldview. From what my senses have picked up, people have always held their own divergent worldviews regardless of what other people think about or say to them. This "imperfection" seems to be to have the motivation to why empiricism found its way to the fore when to came to making any kind of investigation. Therefore, historically speaking, the problems of the second step of the argument do not justify leading to the third step.

 

In summary, the transcendental argument for the existence of God is just another in a long line of attempts to prove God philosophically. Since philosophy is not a rigorous, empirical discipline, all the theist and atheist can only posit as to whether or not a God exists. Therefore, a specific context for the existence of God is at best subjective to the observer. Since the observer is free to choose their own context, they are free to posit any argument they want for the existence or the non-existence of God.

Author's Note

This is an essay I wrote during a trying time in my life, which is still happening.

Please be kind, and thank you for reading and reviewing.

Reviews

[TLK]

Please educate me if I'm wrong, but this seems to boil down to: "Hey, if there's perfection, God must be involved in it, yeah? Because only God is perfect." It also seems to be influenced by Neo-Platonist thought, saying that if there are forms then these forms must be implicated with God (e.g. as facets of God). In fact, I read this as, "there is objectivity", "objectivity is a Form", "Forms imply God", "Therefore God". The word 'immaterial' just covers up this ontological jump, based on Plato, in my understanding.

Overall, I am reminded strongly of the Ontological Argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument), and would class this as a close relative (not that anyone would care, I'm not expert).

It's quite sad that so much effort has been expended on saying "but my idea of God is so rich and fulfilling it MUST be real". Yeah, I can see, hear, feel, and even TASTE that chicken casserole cooking in my imagination when I'm hungry. But I'm still starving to death.

[Lilly Negoi]

i think that the flaw in all the deduction resides first of all in the conceptual nature of god from people's minds. and also in a very simple observation: to believe that god's existence could be proved through basic logic, no matter the terminology used in the argument, is a false start. a god that could be proved this way would be a much too simple entity compared to the complexity of actions attributed to him.