The Transcendental Argument?

[MindOverMatter]

I think this is an interesting arguement to talk about. Its an arguement given by Matt Slick.
I was going to write it all out, but i thought i might as well just give you the link. I hope you can watch U tube videos.
youtube.com/watch?v=eLWm_123lZU&feature=channel_page

For those that can’t, i can say that, from what i can gather, he more or less argues that the atheist world view cannot account for logical absolutes, i.e. the law of identity, the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction. But logical absolutes can be accounted for by positing the existence of an absolute and perfect mind and being from which logical absolutes eternally emanate.

I’m not sure if this arguement is valid, but he claims that it demonstrates the existence of what we call God. So i would be interested in seeing what everyone thinks. I want to see a healthy debate take place from which i can learn.

Peace.

 

[Eucharisted]

We can gather evidence for God’s existence, but we cannot prove that God exists. God created a tangible world so we could have faith. It is like a test for us. The angels did not see God when they were tested, and we do not see God while we are in the Universe. It is a matter of faith.

I don’t know anything about logical absolutes, but I do know a bit about absolute truths. It is an absolute truth that man is man, so absolute truths do exist. If absolute truths exist, than there must be a truth that makes them all true - so to speak. This truth is the truth itself, and the truth is transcendant. The truth cannot be a creature or a creation, because both are under the authority of truth, so the truth must be supernatural. Since only God is God, than the truth is God. God is the truth. This is just one evidence for God’s existence.

 

[Oreoracle]

But logical absolutes can be accounted for by positing the existence of an absolute and perfect mind and being from which logical absolutes eternally emanate.

I don’t see how we can call something perfect without starting off with some concrete standards, and with something as abstract as a mind, I believe concrete standards would likely be impossible to recognize. I’m also concerned about the sequence of this process: does perfection dictate absolutes or do absolutes dictate perfection? I believe it to be the latter. If it is the latter, then God only has a perfect mind according to a standard that doesn’t emanate from his perfection.

 

[punkforchrist]

The best proponent of TAG, in my estimation, is the late Greg Bahnsen. You can buy an mp3 of his debate with Gordon Stein here: cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=234

The aim of TAG is to demonstrate that apart from the Christian worldview, knowledge of anything is impossible. That’s not to say that non-Christians cannot know anything, but that they wouldn’t be able to if their worldview were true. For what it’s worth, I don’t accept the strong-modal version of TAG, but everyone can decide for themselves.

I do, however, believe that similar arguments are defensible, e.g, the conceptualist argument.