TAG: Not Even Wrong

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Astro Cat »

A common argument some theists use (particularly presuppositionalists) is that God is transcendentally required for logic (or "the laws of logic"), and that therefore non-theistic positions are doomed from the start since they must rely on logic to be argued.

Cornelius Van Til famously writes in A Survey of Christian Epistemology (p.205):
Cornelius Van Til wrote:We must therefore give our opponents better treatment than they give us. We must point out to them that univocal reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we must meet our enemy on their own ground. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions.
A typical formulation of such a transcendental argument for God (or TAG) might go like this, lifted straight from Wikipedia's article on the same:
Wikipedia wrote:1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).

2. 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.

3. 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.
The solution is to attack the first premise: that God is a necessary precondition for logic. This is the argument that presuppositionalists make in all kinds of different forms, and I submit that they are all putting the cart before the horse.

First, it is necessary for me to lay out what I mean when I say "the laws of logic." When I say this, I'm referring to the Aristotelian sort:
Identity (A = A, or something that exists, exists as what it is)
Excluded Middle (A v ¬A, or something is either itself or it is something else)
Non-Contradiction (¬(A ^ ¬A), or something can't be both itself and something else at the same time and in the same respect)

The presuppositionalist will say that these are actually laws of thought, and that in order for these things to be true, there must be a mind in which they obtain: God's. That by virtue of God's existence these things universally obtain.

I say that this is problematic, as mentioned before, because it puts the cart firmly before the horse. How could God be the foundation for anything at all without being God? In other words, doesn't it seem a necessary condition for God = God to be true before God can somehow make A = A to be true? But that is Identity: it seems as though identity is a necessary precondition for God to be God rather than the other way around!

The presuppositionalist might turn around and say that this is nonsense: God is a se, exists unto Himself, is not dependent on anything to exist by virtue of His aseity. But herein lies another riposte: I submit that God cannot exist a se because God is dependent on at least one thing transcendental to Himself: that which makes God, God (or limits God to being God and not from being not-God, however we want to phrase this).

Alvin Plantinga poses a little problem in his book, Does God Have a Nature?: we hold these two intuitions about God, that God has aseity and that God has absolute sovereignty. But these intuitions make a paradox when all that we do is we ask: could God have decided to have different properties?

The answer can't be "yes" (which would be the route where we agree with absolute sovereignty) as that also puts the cart before the horse: in order for God to have decided to have different properties "in the beginning" (and I don't mean temporally "the beginning," I just mean whatever "initial" properties God may have had) then God would have had to already have properties, such as the property of knowing what properties are possible to have, and the property of power to make it so. Put shortly, God couldn't have chosen His initial properties because the very act of choosing properties to have requires properties to already exist.

So God can't have absolute sovereignty: God's properties, at least initially, were beyond God's control, He couldn't help but to have those properties. But that means that God is relevantly dependent on something else, something transcendental to God: the thing that makes God God, and not anything else. That thing can't be God Himself (by way of the argument just above). So the presuppositionalist can no longer say that nothing is transcendental to God, because something has to be in order for God to be God in the first place.

Logic, or the "laws of logic," is one of those things that has to be transcendental to God. God is relevantly dependent on logic in order to be God and not the other way around. Thus God can't be the "foundation" or "source" of logic, and thus the Transcendental Argument for God fails before it ever gets off the ground.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Age »

Until you define what the God word here is referring to exactly, any and all arguments about God fail, before they even begin to get off the ground.

So, would you like to explain, and elaborate on, what the word 'God' means or is referring to here, exactly?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Astro Cat »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:25 am Until you define what the God word here is referring to exactly, any and all arguments about God fail, before they even begin to get off the ground.

So, would you like to explain, and elaborate on, what the word 'God' means or is referring to here, exactly?
This seems to be a different sort of non-cognitivist objection that's beyond the scope of what the OP is setting out to do. If you want to start a thread for this, I could join in; but you'd be preaching to the choir (I'm an atheist and I'm usually only giving the term the benefit of the doubt in the first place).
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by bobmax »

The logic lies downstream of the original subject-object split.

This split is existence itself.

Being is upstream of the split.

Therefore Being does not exist, Being is.

No existing, Being = Nothing.

If we mean Being by God, then God = Being = Nothing.

The object exists precisely because it is separated from everything else.
The principle of identity is in fact a negation.
A = A
That is, A is not B, C, D...

Existence is denial.

While God is the negation of the negation.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Age »

Astro Cat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:10 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:25 am Until you define what the God word here is referring to exactly, any and all arguments about God fail, before they even begin to get off the ground.

So, would you like to explain, and elaborate on, what the word 'God' means or is referring to here, exactly?
This seems to be a different sort of non-cognitivist objection that's beyond the scope of what the OP is setting out to do. If you want to start a thread for this, I could join in; but you'd be preaching to the choir (I'm an atheist and I'm usually only giving the term the benefit of the doubt in the first place).
Why would you and why do you give a term, which refers to something that does not even exist, the benefit of the doubt?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Astro Cat »

bobmax wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:46 am The logic lies downstream of the original subject-object split.

This split is existence itself.

Being is upstream of the split.

Therefore Being does not exist, Being is.

No existing, Being = Nothing.

If we mean Being by God, then God = Being = Nothing.

The object exists precisely because it is separated from everything else.
The principle of identity is in fact a negation.
A = A
That is, A is not B, C, D...

Existence is denial.

While God is the negation of the negation.
I'm not forming a clear picture of what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase and elucidate?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Astro Cat »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:35 am
Astro Cat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:10 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:25 am Until you define what the God word here is referring to exactly, any and all arguments about God fail, before they even begin to get off the ground.

So, would you like to explain, and elaborate on, what the word 'God' means or is referring to here, exactly?
This seems to be a different sort of non-cognitivist objection that's beyond the scope of what the OP is setting out to do. If you want to start a thread for this, I could join in; but you'd be preaching to the choir (I'm an atheist and I'm usually only giving the term the benefit of the doubt in the first place).
Why would you and why do you give a term, which refers to something that does not even exist, the benefit of the doubt?
I consider this objection to be off-topic. The argument is aimed at those for whom the word God holds some meaning anyway.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Age »

Astro Cat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:09 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:35 am
Astro Cat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:10 am

This seems to be a different sort of non-cognitivist objection that's beyond the scope of what the OP is setting out to do. If you want to start a thread for this, I could join in; but you'd be preaching to the choir (I'm an atheist and I'm usually only giving the term the benefit of the doubt in the first place).
Why would you and why do you give a term, which refers to something that does not even exist, the benefit of the doubt?
I consider this objection to be off-topic. The argument is aimed at those for whom the word God holds some meaning anyway.
I did not make an objection in this reply, nor in my first reply.

Now, you do not hold any meaning for the word 'God', so what you are arguing for here is just an irrefutable fact anyway, correct?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Astro Cat »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:24 am I did not make an objection in this reply, nor in my first reply.

Now, you do not hold any meaning for the word 'God', so what you are arguing for here is just an irrefutable fact anyway, correct?
What I'm arguing here is a reductio ad absurdum regarding whether the premises given can coexist with the observed world.

If I had to give a definition of what a god is, it would be some list of properties like a being that created the cosmos, that God has the property of personhood, that God has some properties of having power and knowledge, etc. There are a lot of different proposed gods, so a definition would not be able to be exhaustive. The OP assumes that the word "God" is at least vaguely meaningful (as it's directed at people that already believe this anyway), so I think a non-cognitivist objection to the word itself is a separate topic.

Edit: I got confused for a moment and thought I was talking about the PoE (I have that conversation going on elsewhere), but my response is still mostly right. This paradox between aseity and sovereignty just precludes any being of any sort from being claimed to be a foundation of logical limitation, since it requires itself to be logically limited in order to found or ground anything at all.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Age »

Astro Cat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:49 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:24 am I did not make an objection in this reply, nor in my first reply.

Now, you do not hold any meaning for the word 'God', so what you are arguing for here is just an irrefutable fact anyway, correct?
What I'm arguing here is a reductio ad absurdum regarding whether the premises given can coexist with the observed world.

If I had to give a definition of what a god is, it would be some list of properties like a being that created the cosmos, that God has the property of personhood, that God has some properties of having power and knowledge, etc. There are a lot of different proposed gods, so a definition would not be able to be exhaustive. The OP assumes that the word "God" is at least vaguely meaningful (as it's directed at people that already believe this anyway), so I think a non-cognitivist objection to the word itself is a separate topic.

Edit: I got confused for a moment and thought I was talking about the PoE (I have that conversation going on elsewhere), but my response is still mostly right. This paradox between aseity and sovereignty just precludes any being of any sort from being claimed to be a foundation of logical limitation, since it requires itself to be logically limited in order to found or ground anything at all.
Out of curiosity, do you think you have argued for your belief here soundly and validly?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Astro Cat »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:38 am Out of curiosity, do you think you have argued for your belief here soundly and validly?
Well, I didn't present my argument syllogistically.

The reason why the term God having some exhaustive meaning or not doesn't matter much is because the audience the argument's targeted at think it does, then the argument follows from that.

For instance I have no idea what a slithey tove is (other than that according to Lewis Carroll they gyre and gimble in the wabe), but I can argue that whatever they might be, they can't be Euclidean square-circles all the same. With such an argument, I don't have to define slithey tove. That's why this objection about the definition of "God" as a term is something of a side topic that I'm less concerned about in this post.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Age »

Astro Cat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:46 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:38 am Out of curiosity, do you think you have argued for your belief here soundly and validly?
Well, I didn't present my argument syllogistically.

The reason why the term God having some exhaustive meaning or not doesn't matter much is because the audience the argument's targeted at think it does, then the argument follows from that.

For instance I have no idea what a slithey tove is (other than that according to Lewis Carroll they gyre and gimble in the wabe), but I can argue that whatever they might be, they can't be Euclidean square-circles all the same. With such an argument, I don't have to define slithey tove. That's why this objection about the definition of "God" as a term is something of a side topic that I'm less concerned about in this post.
Okay, so more or less, you are just presenting an argument that what you currently believe does not even exist, does not even exist, correct?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Astro Cat »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:08 am Okay, so more or less, you are just presenting an argument that what you currently believe does not even exist, does not even exist, correct?
The argument doesn't argue that God doesn't exist. Only that logical limitation is transcendental to God (if one exists) and not the other way around. It's a response to transcendental arguments for God.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Age »

Astro Cat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:11 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:08 am Okay, so more or less, you are just presenting an argument that what you currently believe does not even exist, does not even exist, correct?
The argument doesn't argue that God doesn't exist. Only that logical limitation is transcendental to God (if one exists) and not the other way around. It's a response to transcendental arguments for God.
If ANY one is 'trying to' argue 'for' God, by putting up some so-called 'transcendental argument', starting with the premise that God is transcendentally required for logic (or "the laws of logic"), and that therefore non-theistic positions are doomed from the start since they must rely on logic to be argued, then this is just circular reasoning and therefore just a fallacy in the argument. End of story.

One does not need to 'argue' against faulty reasoning. Just point out or show the fault or flaw in their reasoning, and that ends 'that argument', completely.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: TAG: Not Even Wrong

Post by Astro Cat »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:25 am If ANY one is 'trying to' argue 'for' God, by putting up some so-called 'transcendental argument', starting with the premise that God is transcendentally required for logic (or "the laws of logic"), and that therefore non-theistic positions are doomed from the start since they must rely on logic to be argued, then this is just circular reasoning and therefore just a fallacy in the argument. End of story.

One does not need to 'argue' against faulty reasoning. Just point out or show the fault or flaw in their reasoning, and that ends 'that argument', completely.
OK. I think the OP's interesting, you don't. That's fine.
Post Reply