Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Thursday, February 02, 2006

TAG as teleological argument

Here is how my friend Derek has blown the lid of the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) wide open. The number one fact that Christians bank on when they wield TAG is its supposed universality. It is said to demonstrate the futility of any atheistic reasoning. Despite the extreme reluctance of TAG advocates to pin themselves down to any single argument, we can express it in this way :

(1) If logic, induction and science are valid (or any reasoning at all, for that matter), then the Christian god exists.
(2) Logic, induction and science are valid.
(3) The Christian god exists. (from 1 and 2)

The nihilistic or relativist answer to TAG is to refute (2). The rational-scientific approach, on the other hand, attacks TAG by refuting (1) and proposing the following :

(1b) Logic, induction and science are compatible with the view that the Christian god exists as well as its negative.

Or if you agree with TANG and materialist apologetics :

(1c) If logic, induction and science are valid (or any reasoning at all, for that matter), then the Christian god does not exist.

However, there is an even more intuitive way of defeating TAG, which consists in refuting its universality and reducing it to a class of arguments which atheists can already answer adequately : arguments from design.

Arguments from design take the following form :

(1) Feature X of the universe shows design.
(2) Design cannot exist without a designer.
(3) Because of my belief, I assume that this designer is the god of Christianity.

Now transpose TAG into this form :

(1) Logic, induction and science show design (or more exactly : they cannot exist without design).
(2) Design cannot exist without a designer.
(3) Because of my belief, I assume that this designer is the god of Christianity.

Thus TAG is easily reducible to a simple, miserable design argument.

Post a Comment


32 Comments:

At 2/02/2006 8:01 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Is the TAG unique among Christian apologetics in the myriad of different ways it can be refuted?

Personally, I wouldn't even give it enough credit for a Design argument- I always thought it was just an argument from ignorance.

 
At 2/02/2006 8:58 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Though the entire blog post was sub-par ... I'd like to see if you have any sources where TAG is argued as a design argument. All you've done is to misrepresent TAG. I mean, I can do that. Watch,

Atheism's arguments against God lead to stupidity:

Here is the atheist argument against God:

1) All things are material.

2) God is not material.

3) Therefore God is not a thing.

4) If God is not a thing then atheists are stupid.

5) God is not a thing.

6) Therefore, atheists are stupid.


Would you look at that!!! I've shown that atheist is stupid, bu atheists own argument!

So, can any of you do the scholarly and intellectually respectable job of showing where TAG is argued in the way Sansone construed it in ANY TAG LITERATURE or from ANY TAG propeonent?

Question of the day: Do we have a right to just transform our opponents arguments into something they are not just to "beat them?"

Zach, you are likewise ignorant. TAG is not an argument from ignorance. We are not saying that because you are ignorant of X, therefore God exists. Actually, if you've paid attention, we are saying something more like, because you ARE NOT ignorant of X, that shows you presuppose that God exists.

Anyway, I'd like to see the good doctor write a blog on his thoughts about TAG and argument from ignorance. I will swiftly refute it and add yet another post to my cache of posts refuting GTA.

 
At 2/02/2006 10:06 AM, Blogger VanTilsGhost declaimed...

Paul, my good chap,

I was wondering what your feelings were on the remarks by your fellow Calvinist, TREYFrog of UnchainedRadio?

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/01/kill-heretics.html

Do you also support his biblically supported views?

 
At 2/02/2006 10:17 AM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Paul: "Here is the atheist argument against God"

Paul, again you miss a fundamental point: one does not need to prove that the non-existent does not exist. If something doesn't exist, why would one need to prove that it doesn't exist? Whether or not one succeeds in proving its non-existence, if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, flat and simple. If you have a problem with that, well, it's all yours.

Paul: "Question of the day: Do we have a right to just transform our opponents arguments into something they are not just to 'beat them'?"

Well, as we saw in this thread, according to Christianity, man has no rights to begin with. According to Christian teaching, man is a slave, either to an invisible magic being or to some mysterious power called "sin" against which he is powerless. So, talk of rights is off limits to Christians; such talk would only proceed on the basis of stolen concepts given their worldview.

Paul: "TAG is not an argument from ignorance. We are not saying that because you are ignorant of X, therefore God exists."

Oh, it's an argument from ignorance alright. Or, as I will show in an upcoming blog, an assertion from ignorance. You'll see what I mean soon enough.

Stay tuned!
Dawson

 
At 2/02/2006 10:46 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy asserting that if something is currently unexplained then it did not (or could not) happen, or that if evidence of something has not been proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist."

The TAG posits that atheism cannot explain logic, therefore in the atheist worldview, logic cannot exist.

;)

 
At 2/02/2006 11:07 AM, Blogger Clarence the Theologian declaimed...

TAG is not a teleological argument. As Bahnsen observed, it is extraordinary. We are saying that without God, and Nietszche and Sartre would agree, all is meaningless, for all is indeed arbitrary. You can try to tell me about biology and laws of physics, but it won't matter if there is no transcendental referential establishing meaning-making. This is precisely why the Bible says the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. Without God, all is reduced to foolishness. Your opinions are no better than my opinions. In fact, in our post-modern epistemology that reigns in university philosophy departments, Foucault argued that anyone that claimed to possess the truth was self-deceived. To claim to have the truth is simply to excercise power over others. Funny though, is it true that there is no truth? How is Foucault right and everyone wrong? You may ask, how do I know I'm right? Because God loved me and chose me before the foundation of the world--that's why I believe. If I did't, I'd still be an atheist too (See Ephesians 1.1-14).

 
At 2/02/2006 11:16 AM, Blogger streetapologist declaimed...

Zach-

You said:

"The TAG posits that atheism cannot explain logic, therefore in the atheist worldview, logic cannot exist."

Your statement infers that you have a basic misunderstanding of TAG. TAG says that the atheist can't account for logic, not that it doesn't exist. By way of example when you point out x contradiction you are applying logic, p is not ~p. However based on the atheistic worldview how is a universal, immaterial law possible?

 
At 2/02/2006 11:28 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Zach,

Thanks for the refresher course ;-)

Anyway, you would agree, being the scholar that you are, that when you critique someone you should try to represent their position correctly, right. You should cite sources, etc., right? I mean, when you wrote your dissertaition, did you have no footnotes?

SO, here's your claim:

"The TAG posits that atheism cannot explain logic, therefore in the atheist worldview, logic cannot exist."

Actually, the argument is not that atheists cannot "explain" logic (actually some "explain" it better than theists). The argument is that if your worldview were true, it would not exist. The argument is that laws of logic are inconsistent with your worldview.

So, this is something like it:

X's worldview, W, says that all that exists are marbles.

Then we have some entity, E', that is non-marble in character.

Therefore, E' is not possible in W.

But, that's not it. We further argue that,

E' is only possible in the a Christian worldview, CW, therefore, using E' is to assume the truth of CW.

Now, THE POINT OF THE ABOVE IS NOT TO SHOW THE TRUTH OF, OR PROVE TAG. Got that? Let me say it again. THE POINT OF THE ABOVE IS NOT TO SHOW THE TRUTH OF, OR PROVE TAG. aRE WE CLEAR? aRE WE ON THE SAME PAGE/ IF SO, THEN i EXPECT YOUR RESPONSE TO STAY ON TRACK.

The point of the above was to show that TAG is not an argument from ignorance. If you still think that it is, then show how my analysis above is an argument from ignorance.

If you can't will you be epistemically responsible enough to admit that you were wrong? Note, you can still disagree with TAG but it must be for other reasons.

~Paul

[1] as a note, if someone does use the term, "you can't 'explain' something" that should be read, "your worldview says that all that exists are marbles and so you cant explain how a non-marble things exists in your worldview. Indeed, you can't explain it because it would not exist."

[2] 'nother note: the typical terminology is that you cannot "account" for some feature of the world given the way you say the world is.

[3] Find me one reputable logician or philosopher that would call the above an argument from ignorance.

[4] And, I don't just think you can't "account" for just logic and a some other things. The claim of TAG is that you cannot explain or account for ANYTHING. So, [4] refutes the charge that TAG is a God of the gaps argument.

 
At 2/02/2006 12:34 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

It's remedial English time again.

to account (v): To provide an explanation or justification for.

synonym (n): A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

"when you critique someone you should try to represent their position correctly, right."

Absolutely.

"when you wrote your dissertaition, did you have no footnotes?"

Not a single one. ;) Look it up for yourself.

Now, I'd hope that you'd apply the same scholarly standards to my argument that you expect from mine, correct? If so, why have you misrepresented the atheist worldview? I certainly don't claim that logic is an entity that does not exist in my worldview. If you're going to advance that argument, you're going to have to show that your minor premise is valid. But how in the world are you going to do that? Let's see... usually you ask us to account for logic given our worldview, and then conclude that we can't.

Oh, snap! There's that argument from ignorance again! You've just hidden it implicitly in your minor premise! You're such a clever one, you are.

;)

 
At 2/02/2006 1:13 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

This is an atheist blog. One or two Christians is fine, but three ? Jesus said that where you're not welcome, you shake your sandals, curse against them, then go somewhere else. Why can't you jackasses be more like Jesus ?

 
At 2/02/2006 6:36 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Zach,

I defined how "account" and "explain" were to be used. Stop going to your god, the dictionary, and thinking I'll bow to it.

"I certainly don't claim that logic is an entity that does not exist in my worldview."

I know you don't claim this. But you do claim that all that exists is matter (or, marbles). Now, I would argue that logic is not material. Therefore is not a marble. Therefore, it wouldn;t exist *given your worldview.* But it does exist. Therefore your worldview is false.

Anyway, I know that I would have to argue for all that. But I took the time, even writting in CAPS and said that I was explaining the mechanics. I was not, at this point, arguing for it. So, you need to show how what i said is an argument for ignorance.

"But how in the world are you going to do that? Let's see... usually you ask us to account for logic given our worldview, and then conclude that we can't."

That is not an argument from ignorance, Zach. First off, if you can't then I conclude you can't.

Second, given the nature of logic and the nature of math, you will never be able to account for them.

Third, I'm always open to someone trying. So, if you fail at one time I'll allow you to try again.

Anyway, I have never argued, nor will you find in any of the presuppositionalist literature, that way.

The infidels fallacy files sates AI thus:

"Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true."

But, my argument isn't that Christianity must be true simply because it has been proven false. Nor is my argument that atheism is false because it hasn't been proven true. My argument is that the Christian worldview is true because it is transcendentall necessary for the possibility of knowledge.

Zach, do you think Kant, Strawson, Wittgenstein, Davidson, Bahnsen, et all committed this fallacy? If so, why do you think that no one has ever made this charge in any of the secular literature on transcendental arguments qua arguemnts? Have you seen what all these philosophers (e.g., Stroud, Korner, et al) have failed to see? Woudl you consider writting an essay on it and contributing it to the corpus of writtings on trannscendental arguments? maybe you'll even get an honorary Ph.D in philosophy for adding to the overall body of knowledge.

*sigh*

~Paul

 
At 2/02/2006 6:39 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

***edit***

above in the sentence that reads, "Second, given the nature of logic and the nature of math, you will never be able to account for them." about halfway down, I meant to say,


"Second, given the nature of logic and the nature of matter, you will never be able to account for them."

 
At 2/02/2006 8:19 PM, Blogger streetapologist declaimed...

Gee Franc-

Surely you don't want to run off the Christians-you'd cut your readership down by half.

 
At 2/02/2006 8:37 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

Read carefully, now- you argue that logic is immaterial. That's all fine and good, and yes, you've got to provide an argument for that. And I don't really care HOW you do that. I can't really imagine any good way to do it, but what I've heard from you in the past when you've been arguing the point is that atheism cannot account or explain for logic properly as a material entity. If you have some other argument for why logic is immaterial, then by all means post it on your blog, but unless you can do so without pointing out atheism's supposed inability to give a material accounting for it, then you're arguing from ignorance.

*Sighs louder than Paul*

Maybe I deserve an honorary Ph.D. just for dealing with you so long.

;)

 
At 2/03/2006 10:40 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Zach, I promise we can debate the immaterial nature of the LoL on my blog.

But, now, REMEMBER THE PAINS I WENT HROUGH????? I TOLD YOU THAT I WAS NOT ARGUING OR DEFENDING TAG, AND CERTAINLY NOT THE IMMATERIALNESS OF THE Lol. I TOLD YOU THIS, CAN YOU STAY ON TRACK?????

Now, for the last time, show how what I said above was an argument from ignorance???? Actually, I'm so glad that you act this stubborn and refuse to admit that you're wrong, even after I've time and tim again shown that you were. It shows the true nature of your religion, and who really is the one who follows an irrational, faith-based, faith.

So, put up or shut up, please.

 
At 2/03/2006 10:43 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

YOUR MINOR PREMISE IS AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. IF YOU CAN'T UNDESTAND THIS IN ALL CAPS THEN THERE'S NO HOPE FOR YOU. I'VE SHOWN THIS ABOVE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT MYSELF JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE LAZY. IF YOU WANT TO VINDICATE YOURSELF, DO IT ON YOUR BLOG, OR SHUT UP YOURSELF.

 
At 2/03/2006 12:11 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

My minor premise *is not* an argument from ignorance, Zach.

I don't argue that, "because you don;t know or can't explain" or laws of logic exist in your worldview, therefore you cannot explain them.

I argue that the character of logic is incompatable with the character of matter, therefore the cannot exist because immaterialk entities do not exist, and never will, given *what you say.*

So, you're trying to get into a debate over this, that's fine, we can do so. But for now, look at my above argument I just typed and tell me how that is an argument from ignorance?

I would argue, for example, according to Leibniz's law of identicals. That is, for any property, P, if P is identical to X then anything said of P would have to be said of X, and conversly.

So, if logic is material but it has a property, P, that is not true of something material, it therefor cannot be material.

So, for example, logical laws are invarient and universal whereas matter is changing and particular. LoL have a prescriptive aspect to them, matter does not... it just is. Something material should be, in theory, something observable by the senses. LoL are not observable. If they were, though, they would be open to future falsification. But the laws of logic are not open to future falsification.

Anyway, many atheists argue the same way I do. Indeed, I've taken many arguments from them. Or, take the genius Gottlob Frege, no friend of Christianity, in his book The Foundations of Arithmatic and his arguments therein. Read that and see if you think logic (or mathematical entities) are material.

So, though we can debate the above points, and which you will because you don't want to face the *real* argument, I'd actually like to see you man-up and do what I requested. That is, show *how the above* is an argument from ignoarance.

You can't. If so, then you sayn that Michael martin and Bertrand Russell argued from ignorance??? WOuld you like me to give you Martin's e-mail address or home phone number so that you can tell him of his fallacies?

*sigh* *harrrumph*

 
At 2/03/2006 12:39 PM, Blogger VanTilsGhost declaimed...

Dr Moore and Paul...

You guys just need to go rent a hotel room, watch "Brokeback Mountain" on PPV, and work out your 'issues' with each other.

I think its for the best, and you guys will feel much better afterards.

And Paul...my good chap...why do you constantly need to 'name drop' and bring up the fact that you've got Michael Martin's phone #...we get it...you've interacted with him. Neat.

 
At 2/03/2006 1:29 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

"And Paul...my good chap...why do you constantly need to 'name drop' and bring up the fact that you've got Michael Martin's phone #...we get it...you've interacted with him. Neat."

Well, because I thought the two Drs could set a time to watch brokeback mountain together while Dr. Moore "talks dirty" to Dr. Martin, calling him a "dirty little spewer of fallacies."

I thought you'd appreciate that, my good chap.

 
At 2/03/2006 2:15 PM, Blogger VanTilsGhost declaimed...

Paul, my young protege,

OK, that explains this particular instance of 'name dropping' Michael Martin, (although I doubt those were the thoughts in your mind when you typed it...)

but what about the other times you've done this? I've read about your awesome relationship with Mr Martin a number of times in your writings.

 
At 2/03/2006 4:11 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Well, my lad, I'm using a non-fallacious argument from authority (cf. Copi Cohen, Intro to Logic).

....waiting for zach to show how Martin, Russell, Frege, and I commit the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

 
At 2/03/2006 4:24 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Paul,

How do you define "logic"? According to us atheists' God, the dictionary, it says logic is a process of reasoning. I would say that this is another way of saying it is a concept. Do you agree with this definition or not, and if not, why?

I dont understand how a person can claim that logic is immaterial without also claiming that all meta data and concepts are immaterial. So Im hoping you can expound on your "logic is immaterial" position by answering a few questions for me.

Do you think that any other "concepts" besides logic are immaterial (or at least not material)? Or do you possibly think that all concepts are immaterial?

Would you say that all meta data is immaterial? Like, for example, the words and ideas that these typed letters on the screen represent?

 
At 2/03/2006 5:15 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

*Haarrrruuuummpppphhhh*

Your minor premise is an assertion unless you can show that it is concluded from another syllogism. Please show this, and I'll show you where you're arguing from ignorance.

VTG-

Don't give him any ideas. I really don't want to explore the homoerotic connotations of the phrase, "Reap the Whirlwind."

 
At 2/03/2006 5:32 PM, Blogger VanTilsGhost declaimed...

Zach said:

"VTG-

Don't give him any ideas. I really don't want to explore the homoerotic connotations of the phrase, "Reap the Whirlwind." "

Maybe you'll also discover what Paul really wants from you when he slaps the 'rear naked choke hold' on you. ;)

 
At 2/04/2006 2:22 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Zachary,

"Your minor premise is an assertion unless you can show that it is concluded from another syllogism. Please show this, and I'll show you where you're arguing from ignorance."

Ummm, I already did. Look at the arguments I gave. Now, tell me how those arguments are arguments from ignoarce.

~Paul

 
At 2/06/2006 9:50 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

This is all you said.

"Now, I would argue that logic is not material."

Put up or shut up. This is really getting boring and sad for you.

 
At 2/06/2006 12:11 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Oh, sorry Zach, you must have missed what I said above (how embarrassing for you to not read what I wrote). I post it again:

I don't argue that, "because you don;t know or can't explain" or laws of logic exist in your worldview, therefore you cannot explain them.

I argue that the character of logic is incompatable with the character of matter, therefore the cannot exist because immaterialk entities do not exist, and never will, given *what you say.*

So, you're trying to get into a debate over this, that's fine, we can do so. But for now, look at my above argument I just typed and tell me how that is an argument from ignorance?

I would argue, for example, according to Leibniz's law of identicals. That is, for any property, P, if P is identical to X then anything said of P would have to be said of X, and conversly.

So, if logic is material but it has a property, P, that is not true of something material, it therefor cannot be material.

So, for example, logical laws are invarient and universal whereas matter is changing and particular. LoL have a prescriptive aspect to them, matter does not... it just is. Something material should be, in theory, something observable by the senses. LoL are not observable. If they were, though, they would be open to future falsification. But the laws of logic are not open to future falsification.

Anyway, many atheists argue the same way I do. Indeed, I've taken many arguments from them. Or, take the genius Gottlob Frege, no friend of Christianity, in his book The Foundations of Arithmatic and his arguments therein. Read that and see if you think logic (or mathematical entities) are material.

So, though we can debate the above points, and which you will because you don't want to face the *real* argument, I'd actually like to see you man-up and do what I requested. That is, show *how the above* is an argument from ignoarance.

You can't. If so, then you sayn that Michael martin and Bertrand Russell argued from ignorance??? WOuld you like me to give you Martin's e-mail address or home phone number so that you can tell him of his fallacies?

*sigh* *harrrumph*

 
At 2/06/2006 3:27 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

You wrote: "I argue that the character of logic is incompatable with the character of matter, therefore the cannot exist because immaterialk entities do not exist, and never will, given *what you say.*"

You left a lot out of this- let me clean it up.

1) If existence is material, then no immaterial things exist.
2) Logic is immaterial.
3) Therefore, if everything is material, logic does not exist.

So, your job is to back up your minor premise. How well do you do this?

You say: "logical laws are invarient and universal whereas matter is changing and particular."

You say this in the context of Leibniz's Law, but I take issue with your characterization of matter. The speed of light is invariant and universal, and light is composed of matter. Therefore, logic is not incompatible with the properties of matter.

"LoL are not observable."

Of course they are. I can observe them any time I want in my logic book at home.

Since your arguments are easily refuted, you fall back on a baseless assertion about logic, and the only way left for you to assert it is by claiming that I cannot account for logic otherwise. Clearly, I can.

 
At 2/06/2006 3:28 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Zachary,

We can debate this, but has this been the point??? You said that it was an argument from ignorance, now show it.

"Of course they are. I can observe them any time I want in my logic book at home."

You're not observing the laws qua laws. Your observing human notations *of* the laws. I mean, you're seriously out to lunch. If I ripped out the laws of logic in your book and burnt them would I be burning actual laws of logic? C'mon, Moore.

"The speed of light is invariant and universal, "

First off, I'd love to see a proof of this.

Second, the "speed of light" is not material. Can you touch "the speed of light?" How come the "speed of light" is not under my bed? I thought it was universal? *Snicker*

Oh yeah, you might want to stay up on your science:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092

And, the speed of light was only measued about 180 years ago. So how do you know how fast it went 200 years ago?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml

Furthermore, the speed of light is not necessary. We can easily imagine it being 10 miles slower or faster. or, maybe a universe with no light. Anyway, laws of logic are necessary, not contingent.

maybe you think it cannot change. if so, people could not beark it. But, people can violate laws of logic.

Laws of nature are not like laws of logic, zach.

Anyway, show how it was an argument from ignoarance. Can you ever admit when you're wrong?

 
At 2/06/2006 4:23 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

Read slower if your brain can't keep up with me. You assert that the only way for the TAG to work is if logic is immaterial. I don't care about debating this either, but I do want to point out that you can only assert that by claiming that I can't account for logic's existence materially. YOU'RE STILL DOING THIS. Even if I can't argue for logic being material, that doesn't mean that the opposite is true. Thus, argument from ignorance.

But I'll take the time to shoot down your bleatings anyway.

"You're not observing the laws qua laws."

Sure I am. Every piece of matter contains the laws of logic implicitly.

"First off, I'd love to see a proof of this."

Jesus Christ, I knew you were lazy, but surely you know how to use Google?

"And, the speed of light was only measued about 180 years ago. So how do you know how fast it went 200 years ago?"

Congratulations, Paul, for arguing from ignorance yet again! You're working on quite a record.

"Furthermore, the speed of light is not necessary."

Uhh, yeah. Tell that to Stephen Hawking. Sure, if other physical constants were different the speed of light might be faster or slower, but it has to be universal and constant.

"But, people can violate laws of logic."

Oh, really. Can you give me the name and number of the person who was able to create a square circle? No, wait. Give me Michael Martin's phone number instead. I can't wait to call him and tell him about this.

;)

 
At 2/07/2006 2:49 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Zach,

The dramatic change in your temperment lately lead me to conclude that I'm getting to you.

I don;t know where the hostility comes from?

Is this the kind of character one gets when he becomes an atheist?

"You assert that the only way for the TAG to work is if logic is immaterial."

No I don't.

"but I do want to point out that you can only assert that by claiming that I can't account for logic's existence materially."

So, that's not an argument from ignorance. Also, I'm saying, for the umpteenth time, that the *reason* you can't account for logic is because it wouldn't exist given your worldview (see the above arguments plus my latest post on you).

" Even if I can't argue for logic being material, that doesn't mean that the opposite is true. Thus, argument from ignorance."

That's not my argument, though. I'm not saying anything about you. I'm saying something about the character of matter and the character of LoL. If matter is all there is, then logic does not exist (except as convention, or lingusitic constructs, but then you have the conventionalists problems).

"But I'll take the time to shoot down your bleatings anyway."

Okay

"You're not observing the laws qua laws."

Sure I am. Every piece of matter contains the laws of logic implicitly."

All the laws of logic? How do they fit? How big is one? Why implicitly? How do you know? have you empirically verified this? This begs the question. So, are there many laws of logic then? If not, then *the same law* is multiply exemplifiable? But you're a nominalist. As the prof at Notre Damn said, "An ignorant redneck."

"Congratulations, Paul, for arguing from ignorance yet again! You're working on quite a record."

Rand on a roast, I can't ask a question??? All I did was ask you how you knew something, and that's an argument from ignorance? let me get this straight. You get to say that the speed of light has always been constant. I ask you how you know, you know, back up your claim, and then you say I'm arguingh from ignorance???? Boy o boy.

"Furthermore, the speed of light is not necessary."

Uhh, yeah. Tell that to Stephen Hawking."

Is this an argument from authority??? And, sorry I wasn;t clear., Granting that it is necessary, it is not *logically* necessary. Laws of logic are *logically* necessary. So, try not to confuse your categories, mkay?

"But, people can violate laws of logic."

Oh, really. Can you give me the name and number of the person who was able to create a square circle? "

I meant that people violate them in the sense that they believe contradictory things. A person can hold contradictory beliefs, or make an invalid argument. Indeed, this is what you claim Christians do all the time. But, can a Christian (or atheist) violate (break) the law of gravity???

So, get your categories straight.

Zach, how many years have I wiped the floor with you?

 
At 2/07/2006 9:43 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

"The dramatic change in your temperment lately lead me to conclude that I'm getting to you."

Not at all. I learned from you that sauce is tasty on both sides of the plate, so I passing the bowl back to you. ;)

"No I don't."

Oh, well, very good then. Logic is material, we both are in agreement.

"Also, I'm saying, for the umpteenth time, that the *reason* you can't account for logic is because it wouldn't exist given your worldview (see the above arguments plus my latest post on you)."

Internal critiques, my good man. My worldview says no such thing. You're slipping.

"If matter is all there is, then logic does not exist (except as convention, or lingusitic constructs, but then you have the conventionalists problems)."

And what is language made of? Matter.

"All the laws of logic? How do they fit? How big is one? Why implicitly? How do you know? have you empirically verified this?"

Absolutely. They're as big as the Universe and as small as an atom (maybe smaller). You find them wherever you find matter.

"So, are there many laws of logic then? If not, then *the same law* is multiply exemplifiable? But you're a nominalist. As the prof at Notre Damn said, "An ignorant redneck.""

No, there's just the three. Incidentally, who's that Notre Dame professor- you're such a name-dropper, I'm surprised you haven't told me yet. Oh, wait- I wouldn't want you to argue from authority. ;)

"All I did was ask you how you knew something, and that's an argument from ignorance? "

Oh, please. You were implying that the speed of light was variable, and you know it. Stop being such a child.

"Granting that it is necessary, it is not *logically* necessary. Laws of logic are *logically* necessary. So, try not to confuse your categories, mkay?"

Well, okay, but that's logic. You didn't say anything about immaterial things being logically necessary. You just said that they had to be universal and unchanging. I gave you the speed of light. Now you're throwing a tantrum.

"I meant that people violate them in the sense that they believe contradictory things. A person can hold contradictory beliefs, or make an invalid argument. Indeed, this is what you claim Christians do all the time. But, can a Christian (or atheist) violate (break) the law of gravity???"

Well, sure, in the sense that someone believes that they can fly. *snicker* I love this new technique- when you're wrong, just make it a different "sense" of the word, and you're in the clear.

You're too cute sometimes.

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home