TAG argument, fails

[G.T.]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

 

[G.T.]

To demonstrate why an argument based on a presupposition, or circle, is a waste of everyone's time:

Here is the "transcendental argument for the non existence of god," by Michael Martin circa 1997

1. if god exists, knowledge does not
2. knowledge exists
3. god does not exist

 

[RandomVariable]

Well yes. The first question is what is knowledge. If I have knowledge that there is a rock in front of me because I just about broke my toe on the thing then one could argue I did not need God to tell me that.

 

[G.T.]

Well yes. The first question is what is knowledge. If I have knowledge that there is a rock in front of me because I just about broke my toe on the thing then one could argue I did not need God to tell me that.

Careful - you can't prove the opposite of TAG, though, unless you can prove that god does NOT exist.

Because if god exists - then he's the reason for the rock, and he's the reason for your brain knowing of the rock.

Both arguments are on irrational footing, in terms of current human knowledge. (real, not abstract)

 

[G.T.]

Here's a decent, albeit not perfect, video.

 

[RandomVariable]

Well yes. The first question is what is knowledge. If I have knowledge that there is a rock in front of me because I just about broke my toe on the thing then one could argue I did not need God to tell me that.

Careful - you can't prove the opposite of TAG, though, unless you can prove that god does NOT exist.

Because if god exists - then he's the reason for the rock, and he's the reason for your brain knowing of the rock.

Both arguments are on irrational footing, in terms of current human knowledge. (real, not abstract)

If God is the reason for the rock and the reason for my brain knowing of the rock does he not have to be there at the time of me kicking the rock?

 

[G.T.]

Well yes. The first question is what is knowledge. If I have knowledge that there is a rock in front of me because I just about broke my toe on the thing then one could argue I did not need God to tell me that.

Careful - you can't prove the opposite of TAG, though, unless you can prove that god does NOT exist.

Because if god exists - then he's the reason for the rock, and he's the reason for your brain knowing of the rock.

Both arguments are on irrational footing, in terms of current human knowledge. (real, not abstract)

If God is the reason for the rock and the reason for my brain knowing of the rock does he not have to be there at the time of me kicking the rock?

It depends on his attributes, I guess.

 

[RandomVariable]

Here's a decent, albeit not perfect, video.

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

 

[RandomVariable]

Well yes. The first question is what is knowledge. If I have knowledge that there is a rock in front of me because I just about broke my toe on the thing then one could argue I did not need God to tell me that.

Careful - you can't prove the opposite of TAG, though, unless you can prove that god does NOT exist.

Because if god exists - then he's the reason for the rock, and he's the reason for your brain knowing of the rock.

Both arguments are on irrational footing, in terms of current human knowledge. (real, not abstract)

If God is the reason for the rock and the reason for my brain knowing of the rock does he not have to be there at the time of me kicking the rock?

It depends on his attributes, I guess.

Sorry, no guessing. Either yes or no.

 

[G.T.]

Well yes. The first question is what is knowledge. If I have knowledge that there is a rock in front of me because I just about broke my toe on the thing then one could argue I did not need God to tell me that.

Careful - you can't prove the opposite of TAG, though, unless you can prove that god does NOT exist.

Because if god exists - then he's the reason for the rock, and he's the reason for your brain knowing of the rock.

Both arguments are on irrational footing, in terms of current human knowledge. (real, not abstract)

If God is the reason for the rock and the reason for my brain knowing of the rock does he not have to be there at the time of me kicking the rock?

It depends on his attributes, I guess.

Sorry, no guessing. Either yes or no.

Being that I dont know if god exists, if god doesnt exist, and which version of god it is if god does exist, I - like any other human - am unqualified to answer.

 

[G.T.]

Here's a decent, albeit not perfect, video.

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

 

[RandomVariable]

Here's a decent, albeit not perfect, video.

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

 

[G.T.]

Here's a decent, albeit not perfect, video.

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

Thats not the only undetermined.

God is undetermined.

 

[PratchettFan]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

If the original premise is not shown to be true, then any conclusions arising from the premise are not demonstrated to be true by the premise. But seriously, do you expect those who assume the truth of the premise to care?

 

[RandomVariable]

Well yes. The first question is what is knowledge. If I have knowledge that there is a rock in front of me because I just about broke my toe on the thing then one could argue I did not need God to tell me that.

Careful - you can't prove the opposite of TAG, though, unless you can prove that god does NOT exist.

Because if god exists - then he's the reason for the rock, and he's the reason for your brain knowing of the rock.

Both arguments are on irrational footing, in terms of current human knowledge. (real, not abstract)

If God is the reason for the rock and the reason for my brain knowing of the rock does he not have to be there at the time of me kicking the rock?

It depends on his attributes, I guess.

Sorry, no guessing. Either yes or no.

Being that I dont know if god exists, if god doesnt exist, and which version of god it is if god does exist, I - like any other human - am unqualified to answer.

God does exist. You can take my word for it.

 

[G.T.]

If the original premise is not shown to be true, then any conclusions arising from the premise are not demonstrated to be true by the premise. But seriously, do you expect those who assume the truth of the premise to care?

No, they won't care that it is not a sound argument.

That's why I made this thread, because I've run into a couple presuppers on this forum.

 

[G.T.]

God does exist. You can take my word for it.

No thanks. Please stop trolling.

 

[RandomVariable]

God does exist. You can take my word for it.

No thanks. Please stop trolling.

Is not whether or not God exists relevant to the OP?

 

[G.T.]

God does exist. You can take my word for it.

No thanks. Please stop trolling.

Is not whether or not God exists relevant to the OP?

Go away dude, I wasn't looking to be trolled.

 

[Hollie]

Here's a decent, albeit not perfect, video.

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture.

It is in the “Design Arguments” (the TAG being among them), that the theistic paradigm shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt god from "A"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In discussing the argument of god and design with religionists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatantly copied.

There are three components engaged in the attempt to prove a god(s) using the design arguments. They are:
The Teleological Argument
The Analogical Argument and
The Argument from Life

The religionist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since (per the religionist), blind chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

Caliber of weapons and volume of fire is now the deciding factor for who has the biggest, baddest gods.