TAG
I'm a theist and I rarely see this argument dealt with here. It is a personal favorite of mine.
(1) Rationality exists
(2) The standards by which rationality is judged are the three logical principles: (a) non-contradiction, (b) excluded middle, (c) identity.
(3) The three principles are ontologically dependent upon thought.
(4) The three principles are universal and a priori.
(5) Only a thinking being which is eternal, immutable, and infallible can account for the universality and a priority of the three principles.
Objection #1: The logical principles are simply descriptions of the behavior of the universe.
Response: If that's true, then they cannot be a priori. Statements regarding the behavior of the universe are a posteriori. This would reduce logical principles to inductive statements. This, in turn, would compromise their universality. It is impossible for us to observe the entire universe, so how could we know that the logical principles apply to the entire universe? At best, we could formulate them as scientific laws which are potentially revisable.
Beyond that, saying that they are descriptions of the universe does not account for the fact that the process of perception and the scientific method itself requires the employment of these principles, which means that they would have to already be in place within us. Even when life begins, anything you experience is subject to your a priori judgments. When you were a baby, your perception of a bottle required you to judge that the bottle was a bottle and was not a non-bottle. It wasn't conscious, but you were doing it.
- Login to post comments
Yes, namely the fact that we are the result of a universe in which such codifications are possible.
That doesn't quite answer the question.
How is it possible if the law of identity is a property of the universe?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
No, I never said that.
Until you demonstrate the relevance of your question to the validity of TAG, answering the question anymore than I have is only going to serve as a distraction from the original post.
So then, rationality can spontaneously appear without a creator? Then, a rational universe does not require a creator.
You can't get around this problem. You apply one rule for God(doesn't require a creator) and one rule for the universe(requires a creator). Why the difference? You're creating a system with inconsistent rules.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I have a challenge for you: Find in my original post where I've used the word "creator"
The 'g' in TAG represents the word 'god'. Many definitions of god (if not all; I'm fairly sure I haven't seen one that doesn't) requires that the entity being refered to by the word god created the universe (or sub-universe or whatever). Thus, you have indeed said creator by most standards of communication.
I'm not in the business of accomodating conventional biases, but I agree that God created the universe.
My point was that the TAG argument has nothing to do with anything being created.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
That we can reliably predict your belief in a creator by your use of TAG would show that the bias is justified. But I agree, it is irrelevant since we're still discussing whether or not TAG even works to begin with.
No, that is not what it means.
God accounts for rationality through the ontological dependence of the standards by which rationality is judged on the mind.
He did not create rationality anymore than he created himself.
So then since God can exist without anyone to create him and his rationality, why can't the universe exist without without a creator? Why the difference? Why doesn't the same rules apply?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Because truth is contingent upon conceptual realities, which require a mind. In order it to be TRUE that the universe exists, there must be a pre-existing criteria by which truth is judged. Otherwise, no truth statements could be made, which reduces to absurdity insofar that even "no truth statements could be made" is itself a statement of truth.
The universe is not a mind. It is not intelligent. When you talk about "intelligence", you know immediately that someone is not referring to rocks, papers, or scissors.
I have shown that reality is not dependent upon your ability to observe it, something children learn before they can speak (remember Peek-a-boo?). Your assertion that the universe requires an all encompassing mind to account for it's existence is baseless.
By that same logic:
Then, In order it to be TRUE that God exists, there must be a pre-existing criteria by which truth is judged. So God requires a pre-existing god to create(or "account for") him. Which contradicts the definition of God as being external.
Yes or No? Why or why not?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
The law of identity is not a 'property' of the Universe, like its size and structure, it is codification of a fundamental aspect of a coherent existence of any sort.
Our brains have all sorts of instincts for making sense of sensory data 'programmed' into them by the evolutionary process, all of which could be considered 'knowledge' of some sort, passed on to us thru the genetic mechanism of inheritance.
The law of identity is not even a 'pattern in the Universe', the principle codified in a statement of the law of identity is a fundamental of existence itself. The concept does not actually exist as a formal principle in most people's minds, it only exists as a principle in the context of philosophical thinking about reasoning itself.
A == A is not really a statement about A, it is a definition of 'identity'.
So the 'law' of identity isn't really a law, it is a definition of the concept of 'identity'.
Similarly, the law of non-contradiction is a definition of 'not', in the idea that for A to be a meaningful referent, there must also exist, at least conceptually, that which is NOT A, which means that
A == NOT A must be false.
These 'Laws' do not represent knowledge of the nature of the Universe, they are definitions of formal tools on which we base the discipline of logical analysis and argument.
EDIT:
TAG is totally reliant on semantic confusion, plus a dash of Platonic idealism nonsense. It is only marginally less stupid than St Anselm's. ontological argument.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I've addressed that in the last objection. Read it back.
I've not made that claim.
What is said was that TRUTH requires a mind. There is no truth without a mind.
So, for clarity, what do you propose is the relation between truth and existence/reality/the universe?
First of all, "definitions" are simply conventions. If you are to say that the definition of "human" is "rational animal", all you are really is saying is "In society X, people use the word "human" to refer to a "rational animal", which is actually a contigent truth.
But going forward with that, let's ASSUME that what you say is true.
Here is what you've acknowledged:
(1) The logical absolutes are not properties of the universe.
(2) The logical absolutes are definitions of the words: "identity", "not". You actually didn't address the LEM.
(3) The logical absolutes are fundamental, i.e. a necessary foundation (thank you for disagreeing with todangst, by the way)
Definitions (at least in the sense in which you've used it) are CONCEPTUAL REALITIES. Moreover, they are STATEMENTS OF TRUTH. And you've already agreed that they are fundamental. From an atheistic worldview, how do you account for the existence of statements which are ALWAYS TRUE and in which you agree are not properties of the universe?
Are they invented by human minds? Or are they a product of human brain chemistry?
So God must be true because man's mind conceived it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Your question is nonsense. How can I possibly answer it?
What do you mean "existence"? Is "existence" a thing that exists?
What do you mean "reality"?
Define your terms.
If I'm understanding your question properly, I would answer it this way:
If true or false did not exist, then could the statement "The universe began with the Big Bang" still have a truth value? I really can't even answer that without contradicting myself. Because if it is TRUE that the statement would not have a truth value, then true or false MUST exist. Otherwise, it would not be TRUE that the statement has no truth value.
So I really can't answer that question. If I say, "The universe/reality/existence are related to truth because without truth, nothing could be true about the universe/reality/existence", then I am making a self-refuting statement. All you've done is taken the truth statements that we make about the universe and divided them into two categories which are IDENTICAL to one another except that you've referred to the left side as THOUGHTS and you've referred to the right side as FACTS.
Yes, that's exactly what I've said.
You are bloody brilliant.
Sorry I don't see it. Can you answer this question directly:
In order it to be TRUE that God exists, there must be a pre-existing criteria by which truth is judged?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Your model will simply lead to an infinite regression of minds to account for the transcendent nature of the truth and rationality.
There is no pre-existing criteria prior to God. This is because God and rationality are not wholly distinct entities. IOW, rationality is not something that God hand crafts and then sends to the world nor is it a manifestation of a property of God, it is a manifestation of God himself. It is concomitant with God's omnipresence in the world.
But this really has nothing to do with TAG. If you want to discuss divine simplicity, you can start a different thread.
No you created the infinite regression of God because you claim that for something to be true there must be a pre-existing mind to judge that it's true. Therefore, God's existence requires a pre-existing God. You can't have one logic rule for the universe then a different rule for God.
So therefore:
There is no pre-existing criteria prior to The Universe. This is because The Universe and rationality are not wholly distinct entities. IOW, rationality is not something that The Universe hand crafts and then sends to the world nor is it a manifestation of a property of The Universe, it is a manifestation of The Universe itself. It is concomitant with The Universe's omnipresence in the world.
Why can't I make this claim about the Universe if you can make this claim about God?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I did not say that there must be a preexisting mind to judge that it is true. God does not decide what is or is not true. God cannot falsify the principle of non-contradiction or the principle of excluded middle.
The issue is that the TAG argument has gone right over your head. The only thing you are doing is applying stock rebuttals that you have for the cosmological argument to an argument that has nothing to do with the cosmological argument. You do not understand the argument at ALL and you consistently misrepresent it when you say things like "God judges that it is true" or that "God creates logic" or whatever it is that you've been saying.
I would just stick to the "Atheist vs. Theist" forum, where you can continually mentally masturbate with your buddies over rookie atheist apologetics such as "God of the Old Testament is evil!" "If everything needs a creator, who created God??!"
Because the logical absolutes are concepts. Concepts exist in minds. The universe is not a mind.
The concepts are invented by human brains, which means they are a product of complex interactions and processes within and between human minds. Those processes are supported by the chemistry of the brain, but the particular ideas that emerge are notgenerated by the chemistry, any more than the results of a computer calculation are determined by the electronic components they are composed of.
Definitions are NOT "STATEMENTS OF TRUTH". Your are confusing two categories of statement.
Definitions are fundamental only to the ongoing discourse which will employ them, whether in informal conversation or in formal argument or analysis, not to the Universe itself.
This is the distinction between the two categories of statements:
1. A square has 4 equal sides.
2. The Earth revolves around the Sun.
Both are true, but (1) is true by definition, indeed it is part of the definition of a 'square', and is virtually a tautology. It actually conveys no fundamentally new information. Statements based on definitions are always true. The truth of "1+1= 2" follows unavoidably from the definitions of the symbols "1", "+", "=", and "2". It is not a contingent property of the universe.
Whereas (2) has been established to be true (provisionally) by observation. It conveys knowledge about the universe.
EDIT: I did not refer to the LEM because it is not as fundamental as the other two, it only applies within certain contexts or logic systems.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Your argument has already imploded. It's over. Give up.
If the logical principles are simply the result of chemical reactions in the brain, then you have absolute no basis for saying that they are fundamental. There are millions of minds throughout the world, each one different than the other. What if the chemical processes within one person's mind differ from those of another, resulting in different logical principles? How do we determine then what is logical and what is not?
Furthermore, you've contradicted yourself. You said that the logical principles are not properties of the universe. The problem is that the brain is a physical entity and is itself a property of the universe. So you are saying that the principles themselves are not properties of the universe but the mediums through which they emerge are properties of the universe? You have some explaining to do.
You've already said that they are products of chemical processes in the brain. Being a product of something is not simply being "supported" by it.
That's a myth.