The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

[dostoyevskyfan]

Much like the Ontological proof, I consider TAG one of the few irrefutable philosophical proofs for the existence of God, specifically the the Roman Catholic Triune God–the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost; who are all one essence. This is primarily because the proof relies on the foundations of epistemology, objective morality, and logical absolutes. In order to stay on topic, I will not go into why other gods (the god of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Muhammad, Homer, etc) are logically inconsistent, I will just assert that they are, and a logically inconsistent god, logically, cannot be united with the Platonic Form that is logic itself or cannot author “logic”; which is a necessary presupposition in order to have any meaningful conversation whatsoever, let alone formal argumentation that “works”.

I must admit that I am not well versed in presuppositionalism and their form of apologetics, although I know a few traditional catholics who are.

I understand the logical implications of atheism; namely that they cannot account for the problem of induction, the uniformity of nature, logic, the functionality of the scientific method, and the consistency of sense experience. This is a serious, and I would even go so far as to say, catastrophic, problem for atheistic epistemology. Atheists cannot claim that the consistency we see with our five senses will actually remain consistent, only that it always has. In short, they do not “know” with any epistemic certainty that their hand won’t suddenly morph into a watermelon at a future time or that the sun will not rise in the west and set in the east tomorrow. The idea that the scientific method is the end all be all solution to knowledge, is itself an idea that cannot be verified by the scientific method, not to mention also relies on the presupposition of the existence of logic to function in the first place.

Either the universe is random or it is not random, in the teleological sense, but also in the sense that it is uniform and consistent; not blind, arbitrary, and without aims or intentions. A lack of belief in God necessarily implies a belief that the cosmos are a haphazard result of statistical (im)probability. When atheists claim that they “do not believe the universe is random”, they provide no justification or they point to the laws of physics, which can be explained in the context of a random universe by the fact that repeating consistent patterns will inevitably emerge in a large string of random numbers. The laws of physics, themselves, in no way prove that the universe is NOT random, and there is no guarantee that they will continue to function they way that they do in the present as they will in the future. This is not “argumentum ad the matrix movie”; rather it demonstrates a logical inconsistency in all non-Catholic worldviews with respect to epistemology.

We must presuppose the existence of God in order that science and logic may function. The argument has its roots in Kant and can be formulated in many different ways. Please discuss your favorite formulation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

1. I think, therefore I am, thus I know that I cannot have knowledge if my thinking does not exist. Thus it is true that I exist. Therefore I know that logic is an expression of fundamental reality. It is a fact about the objective act of being which is the object of my experience, and it is true in reference to reality alone.

2. That which is logically impossible is always logically impossible since truth is an expression of the objective act of being real, which is made evident in premise 1 and premise 3.

3. Out of absolutely nothing comes nothing. There is no objective truth in nothing. Absolutely nothing is the absence of all objective truths or things. Therefore Logical possibilities can only be an expression of being. Firstly, this is because no-thing is not a thing; there is no objectivity in that which is not, and thus it can never be an objective truth. Secondly it would contradict the fact of nothing for something to emerge from it; since there is nothing from which it can be. Absolutely Nothing is the antithesis of Something and therefore there can be no possibility of something or truth in it.

4. There are evidently things. Therefore absolutely nothing has never been an absolute objective fact in reference to the existence of things. In-other-words, things cannot come from nothing, and thus nothing cannot be the ultimate reality.

5. In-order for something to be necessarily true, it must be impossible for it to not be true. A thing is either true or it is not. The idea that “bachelors are not married” cannot ever be false, since if they become married they can no-longer be thought of as bachelors. This is supported by premises 1 to 4.

6. Because there is no ontological thing that is nothing; it necessarily follows that a thing either has the explanation of its existence in itself or in the existence of another being. Therefore anything which begins to exist, has some kind of cause for its existence. This is supported by premise 1 to 4.

7. Physical History is a chain of contingent facts about things. It is either contingent in being or contingent in reference to the past present and future, i e, the physical future does not yet exist in reference to the physical present and the past. That which is potentially real is contingent on that which actual reality. Therefore anything that “changes” proceeds and continues in being via potentiality.

8. Logic cannot be a production of contingent physical facts or events. The very being of physical things is dynamic. Therefore logical truth necessarily and ontologically precedes all physical change, and thus must transcend physical things. When I say precedes, I do not mean in the sense of existing before time, but rather that logical truth cannot be caused in to being or be said to be synonymous to things that change or has the nature of something finite in being.

**8.**Therefore physical reality can only be said to be a manifestation of logic, rather than the cause of logic. This means that, in reference to premise 1 to 4, logical truth is an expression of a timeless transcendent non-physical being.

This is all I want to say for the time being. I will make further inferences later.

 

[ryanoneil]

Is that found in a book somewhere?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is that found in a book somewhere?

Who are you talking to?

 

[JohnDamian]

Who are you talking to?

I believe he was talking to you; the Original poster indicated where more could be read; ie; Kant.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I believe he was talking to you; the Original poster indicated where more could be read; ie; Kant.

Well, I didn’t copy from a book, although I bet you can guess some obvious influences.

 

[JohnDamian]

Well, I didn’t copy from a book, although I bet you can guess some obvious influences.

I didn’t mean too; and I don’t think ryanoneil meant that you had copied it.

Although you tempt me too guess some influences; so I shall entertain myself; and hopefully yourself with some guesses!

It sounds like a combination of Descartes; Parmenides; Aristotle; Aquinas and Al-Farabi - which makes for a certainly formidable argument.

 

[ryanoneil]

Who are you talking to?

I was asking you. Thanks!

 

[ryanoneil]

The reason I ask is, we were just assigned the first chapter of Karl Rahner’s *Foundations of the Christian faith, *and he is using similar transcendental language. But I can’t understand what he is saying and I might as well be reading the old english version of Beowulf.

 

[JohnDamian]

The reason I ask is, we were just assigned the first chapter of Karl Rahner’s *Foundations of the Christian faith, *and he is using similar transcendental language. But I can’t understand what he is saying and I might as well be reading the old english version of Beowulf.

Feel free to point out which point’s you don’t understand. I am sure we will be able to explain in simple terms!



(Incidentally Middle English is more fun than Old English; Chaucer is a genius)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

My question: how is the ontological argument irrefutable?

I’ve heard it refuted before but if you can explain it well I’ll chnge my opinion, of course.

 

[Touchstone]

Much like the Ontological proof, I consider TAG one of the few irrefutable philosophical proofs for the existence of God, specifically the the Roman Catholic Triune God–the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost; who are all one essence. This is primarily because the proof relies on the foundations of epistemology, objective morality, and logical absolutes. In order to stay on topic, I will not go into why other gods (the god of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Muhammad, Homer, etc) are logically inconsistent, I will just assert that they are, and a logically inconsistent god, logically, cannot be united with the Platonic Form that is logic itself or cannot author “logic”; which is a necessary presupposition in order to have any meaningful conversation whatsoever, let alone formal argumentation that “works”.

I must admit that I am not well versed in presuppositionalism and their form of apologetics, although I know a few traditional catholics who are.

Logic is a tool. Symbolic calculus provides structure and systematic processing that allows us to build more more complex and/or derived structures by rule. It’s not magic, though, it’s just a tool, one which we depend on for communicating with others (among other things).

It’s interesting to me to note the inconsistency advanced just in your short intro, though, this idea of a “triune” God, a God who is one (where “one” is not “three” in terms of cardinality), and is simultaneously three (where “three” is not “one”). That’s about as good an example as is to be found of a logical failure, such competing assertions. It’s addressed in apologetics as “mystery”, but in terms of logic, that’s a failure.

Which should chasten one about the “magic” nature of tools. If Catholic beliefs are correct, the logically contradictory notions of the cardinality of “one” and “three” show the inadequacy of the logical conventions we utilize day in and day out. If logic is magic in the simplistic way you imply here, the Trinity is one of the first bits that gets chopped up. We might as well say a circle is square is a triangle, geometrically.

I understand the logical implications of atheism; namely that they cannot account for the problem of induction, the uniformity of nature, logic, the functionality of the scientific method, and the consistency of sense experience.

I don’t know what you mean by “account for”. What does “accounting for” entail, here? Does positing an unseen, unfalisifiable, might-as-well-be-completely-imaginary deity represent “accounting for”?

If you read the IEP article you linked to, you will understand that the concept of God provides no relief for this problem, whatsoever. Moreover, the problem of induction is only a problem in terms of certainty – a standard that is not practical or valuable in an epistemic sense, anyway. Hume’s point was that even the sun coming up is not a certainty, and this is the nature of induction. So it’s not a certainty, so what’s the problem? We make use of the evidence and experiences we have as best we can.

This is a serious, and I would even go so far as to say, catastrophic, problem for atheistic epistemology.

This would only obtain if there was a requirement for certainty. But atheism doesn’t require this, and if anything, rests on an epistemology that denies the epistemic integrity of certainty in the first place. This is not a problem for atheism in the least, and to suggest it is tells me there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Hume/induction problems, atheism, or both.

Atheists cannot claim that the consistency we see with our five senses will actually remain consistent, only that it always has.

I don’t claim that, or need to. Rather, I only claim that consistency fares best as an explanatory and a predictive model for the world around us. It may not perform in some cases, or any case in some unknown future. But it’s the best performing model available, without a second place challenger anywhere near in it’s rear view mirror. Atheism and scientific thinking simply don’t recognize any of the commitments you suppose are obligatory. Consistency in nature and physics just blows any alternative away in terms of performance in real world applications. It may be sub-optimal, but it’s the best we have available, by a large margin.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Dostoyevskyfan:

In short, they do not “know” with any epistemic certainty that their hand won’t suddenly morph into a watermelon at a future time or that the sun will not rise in the west and set in the east tomorrow.

Yes, but such certainty is the goal of fools. That’s the whole point of the problem!

The idea that the scientific method is the end all be all solution to knowledge, is itself an idea that cannot be verified by the scientific method, not to mention also relies on the presupposition of the existence of logic to function in the first place.

I can never get people to cite science’s claims to being the “be all end all”. Who in science says this? I think the claims of science are in practice much more humble and practical; science is a tool for building real knowledge, for developing natural explanations for natural phenomena. That’s all. It does make metaphysical assumptions, namely that the real world has at least some measure of consistency and structure such that it is amenable to building performative models that explain and successful predict what we observe to some degree. Science may be wrong – perhaps the world isn’t discoverable in a natural, systematic way like that, but that is what’s necessary to engage the enterprise of science, so it is embraced necessarily.

Either the universe is random or it is not random, in the teleological sense, but also in the sense that it is uniform and consistent; not blind, arbitrary, and without aims or intentions. A lack of belief in God necessarily implies a belief that the cosmos are a haphazard result of statistical (im)probability.

Well, tell me if isotope decay is “random” or not, and that should clue me in as to what you are saying. One a decay event by decay event basis, it’s utterly random in the timing, so far as we can see. Yet, statistically, over large ensembles of events, it’s like precise clockwork – the decay rates are astroundingly predictable, uniform and precise. Just that one little process captures some of the complexity and harmony I think you have missed here. Isotope decays are both perfectly random at the lowest levels and yet perfectly predictable and structured and consistent as an aggregate process. And no God need be invoked to look at this – it’s a natural phenomenon that demonstrates the integration of stochastic and deterministic dynamics in physics.

When atheists claim that they “do not believe the universe is random”, they provide no justification or they point to the laws of physics, which can be explained in the context of a random universe by the fact that repeating consistent patterns will inevitably emerge in a large string of random numbers.

Hmm. I’ve never heard that explanation offered. I think the problem here is that I have no idea what you mean by “random” here, and I suspect you are more than a little fuzzy on what you mean yourself. What does “random universe” entail, in your view?

The laws of physics, themselves, in no way prove that the universe is NOT random, and there is no guarantee that they will continue to function they way that they do in the present as they will in the future.

Yes, but the notion of guarantees is for children. This is the real world, and we identify no such guarantees here. Knowledge is hard won, always tentative and subject to change and overthrow to some degree, or it’s not knowledge, but dogma.

This is not “argumentum ad the matrix movie”; rather it demonstrates a logical inconsistency in all non-Catholic worldviews with respect to epistemology.

Are you saying that certainty is a requirement, then? That’s all you have been referring to. If so, that complaint is a non-starter. Certainty is for tautologies, not the real world.

We must presuppose the existence of God in order that science and logic may function. The argument has its roots in Kant and can be formulated in many different ways. Please discuss your favorite formulation.

How does God help you “account for” the existence of science and the tool we call logic, in your view? I’m not seeing how God helps either case, even a little bit. It’s not a grounded premise itself!

-TS

 

[JohnDamian]

It’s interesting to me to note the inconsistency advanced just in your short intro, though, this idea of a “triune” God, a God who is one (where “one” is not “three” in terms of cardinality), and is simultaneously three (where “three” is not “one”). That’s about as good an example as is to be found of a logical failure, such competing assertions. It’s addressed in apologetics as “mystery”, but in terms of logic, that’s a failure.

Real unicity; formal distinction. Logically sound.

I can never get people to cite science’s claims to being the “be all end all”. Who in science says this?

No doubt people who claim that Science claims to “be all end all” rather mean Scientism rather than Science in general; which admittedly is particularily ambiguous and incorrect on behalf of the claimant.

Isotope decays are both perfectly random at the lowest levels and yet perfectly predictable and structured and consistent as an aggregate process.

The apparrence of random behaviour does not equate to a random function.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Yes, but such certainty is the goal of fools. That’s the whole point of the problem!

I can never get people to cite science’s claims to being the “be all end all”. Who in science says this? I think the claims of science are in practice much more humble and practical; science is a tool for building real knowledge, for developing natural explanations for natural phenomena. That’s all. It does make metaphysical assumptions, namely that the real world has at least some measure of consistency and structure such that it is amenable to building performative models that explain and successful predict what we observe to some degree. Science may be wrong – perhaps the world isn’t discoverable in a natural, systematic way like that, but that is what’s necessary to engage the enterprise of science, so it is embraced necessarily.

non sequitur.

Well, tell me if isotope decay is “random” or not, and that should clue me in as to what you are saying. One a decay event by decay event basis, it’s utterly random in the timing, so far as we can see. Yet, statistically, over large ensembles of events, it’s like precise clockwork – the decay rates are astroundingly predictable, uniform and precise. Just that one little process captures some of the complexity and harmony I think you have missed here. Isotope decays are both perfectly random at the lowest levels and yet perfectly predictable and structured and consistent as an aggregate process. And no God need be invoked to look at this – it’s a natural phenomenon that demonstrates the integration of stochastic and deterministic dynamics in physics.

another non sequitur. We are talking about epistemology on a philosophy forum. Not isotopes.

Hmm. I’ve never heard that explanation offered. I think the problem here is that I have no idea what you mean by “random” here, and I suspect you are more than a little fuzzy on what you mean yourself. What does “random universe” entail, in your view?

How many different definitions for the word “random” are there? I mean all of them.

Yes, but the notion of guarantees is for children. This is the real world, and we identify no such guarantees here. Knowledge is hard won, always tentative and subject to change and overthrow to some degree, or it’s not knowledge, but dogma.

I’m a philosopher so I’m concerned with consistent epistemology and inconsistent ones. If you aren’t, then it’s not really worth discussing, is it?

How does God help you “account for” the existence of science and the tool we call logic, in your view? I’m not seeing how God helps either case, even a little bit. It’s not a grounded premise itself!

-TS

Maybe this will get you started. Sorry for using wiki. The article says it’s mainly used by calvinists, but I know Catholics who use that type of apologetics also.

 

[awatkins69]

I think the biggest problem for atheism would have to be intentionality. In epistemology of course, we have Plantinga’s Evolutionary Critique of Naturalism. All this applies only to physicalists of course. I’m not sure, but are there many atheists who are not physicalists?

 

[stenlis]

I understand the logical implications of atheism; namely that they cannot account for the problem of induction, the uniformity of nature, logic, the functionality of the scientific method, and the consistency of sense experience.

True. But you can’t either. You just attribute them to god and then you don’t account for god. For you god just ‘is’. For me the consistency of nature and logic just ‘is’ and I don’t add another level of misinformation to it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

True. But you can’t either. You just attribute them to god and then you don’t account for god. For you god just ‘is’. For me the consistency of nature and logic just ‘is’ and I don’t add another level of misinformation to it.

Creating a straw-man is not a justification for willfull ignorance. Firstly, to say that ones opponent doesn’t provide an explanation and that therefore one is free from the rational obligation to seek a rational explanation for the universe, is quite simply “anti-rational”. Secondly, when viewing the a-posterior arguments on this forum for Gods existence I haven’t seen anybody simply State that God done it. With the exception of ID advocates, the members on this forum have been giving mostly valid reasons for why a being such as God is the only rational explanation for the existence of potential physical reality and personal experience. Your straw-man suggests to me that you are trying everything in your power to escape the reality of this fact.

If you want to tell yourself that your life has no more objective moral value than donkey doo doo, and that your life has no objective meaning or purpose, then go ahead. Its a bit of a bizarre fantasy if you ask me, but its your life I suppose:shrug:. The question is, why indoctrinate people with such negative nihilistic nonsense. The world certainly doesn’t appear that way to me, and nobody is under any rational obligation to assume that life is in fact the way that you choose to envisage it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not many years ago the Bible was considered a book of fiction by many. No different that the Wizard of Oz.

Archaeology and Geography have taken us deep into the reality of Exodus, KIng David, and much of the Old Testament, never mind the New Testament. About the only issue not resolved in Exodus is the Holy Grail.

Yet we continue to beat this worn out drum. Faith is a knowledge within the heart. Its beyond the reach of proof. Yet in 2010 there is so much evidence to God/Christ and the truth of the Bible, that we have far surpassed Blind Faith. Don’t get me wrong, its certainly and admirable quality though.

In this day and age its just plain foolishness to deny, or truly a work of evil. I suppose a percentage could be attributed to ignorance. Yet when you consider 99.5% of the world has heard of Jesus Christ? I doubt ignorance would be the card to play. Yet while you uphold the negative side of the debate? I would seriously start giving all this a bit of throught here and there. And maybe, your better thinking will prevail at some point, before its to late. I assure you, you will be shocked at how fast this life goes by.

The first and largest obstacle is self. And its a major stumbling block. It takes great courage to abandon self, and give up “I” and “mine”. But its death happens only once, and what dies is really nothing at all. When the self wins its independence from its own madness and foolishness, for nothing else operates it, then all will become clear, and time and space which are products of action and thought, and part of the dream, will disappear.