Disproving god with the laws of logic

[freethinker44]

I recently heard about TAG (transcendental argument for god), and it seems strange to me why christians would use this argument. Not only does TAG not prove god exists, but I find it to be strong proof that god CANNOT exist.

I believe the first law makes gods existence impossible. It is the law of identity, that something cannot be something and not something at the same time. These laws are absolute, and christians would claim they are the physical manifestation of gods mind. Now, in order for these laws to be absolute, they must be objective. So they are true regardless of personal opinion or whether or not any mind is there to judge them at all.

So the law of identity states that something cannot be something and not something, and this is the ABSOLUTE (this is important terminology) unchanging law which reflects the mind of an absolute unchanging being (god). This is the christian argument, and it is perfectly sound... until you take a little further.

Here is my reasoning:
If the laws are absolute, then god cannot be something and nothing either, making god subjective to the laws. If god is subjective to the laws then they are not apart of god. If god is not subjective to the laws then the laws are not absolute and the whole argument falls apart anyways. But, the laws are logically sound and seemingly impossible, indeed, something cannot be something it is not. A rock will always be a rock even under a different name or if there no one there to label a rock it will still be a rock. So the logic is absolute, which would mean god cannot be an absolute being and still exist.

I'm sure this argument won't get past the "language barrier" and we will spend the whole discussion defining the word "god" or something but when you strip it down to its simplest form the laws of logic leave little room for a god in my opinion.

you can find a good outline of TAG at the CARM website (it won't let me post a link so you will have to google it) if interested, it is too much for me to post here.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Define "God".

 

[freethinker44]

lol, here it goes.

I would define god as THE standard for everything. Whatever the absolute, highest standard I can think of, that is god. My reasoning for this definition, god must meet at a MINIMUM my own standards because I can't see myself as having a higher standard. If a being exists that doesn't meet my standards, even if it comes close, I would only consider it extremely advanced. I don't consider myself god therefore god must be better than what I can consider.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Hahaha i have never heard of TAG before so i looked it up. Let me tell you i am stupider because of it.

So let me get this straight, and this is a fact checking exercise not a xtian bashing one. The main argument is that logic and reason cant exist without god. So therefore using logic and reason to prove god doesnt exist doesnt work?

It seems that they are using the assumption of the existence of god to prove that god exists.

*Now this is the part where i start making fun of xtians.*

I have come up with an alternative:

TAN - Transcendental Argument for Nachos.

*mmm nachos*

Logic and reason cannot exist without Nachos. So you can't use logic and reason to disprove the existence of nachos because without nachos there is no logic and reason. The assumption (well its more of a fact since i had nachos for dinner the other night) of nachos fulfills the argument for the existence of nachos.

It would seem that you could substitute ANYTHING in place of god in the argument and still prove the exact same thing.

-Q

 

[Perfect Circle]

man... i'm really hungry now...

 

[freethinker44]

Yes it is basically the same old argument where they take something no one would disagree on and then simply label it god. But I say they messed up this time, because their argument makes gods existence impossible. They are absolutely right about the laws of logic, can't find anything wrong with them, its just that if they exist then god can't.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I recently heard about TAG (transcendental argument for god), and it seems strange to me why christians would use this argument. Not only does TAG not prove god exists, but I find it to be strong proof that god CANNOT exist.

I believe the first law makes gods existence impossible. It is the law of identity, that something cannot be something and not something at the same time. These laws are absolute, and christians would claim they are the physical manifestation of gods mind. Now, in order for these laws to be absolute, they must be objective. So they are true regardless of personal opinion or whether or not any mind is there to judge them at all.

So the law of identity states that something cannot be something and not something, and this is the ABSOLUTE (this is important terminology) unchanging law which reflects the mind of an absolute unchanging being (god). This is the christian argument, and it is perfectly sound... until you take a little further.

Here is my reasoning:
If the laws are absolute, then god cannot be something and nothing either, making god subjective to the laws. If god is subjective to the laws then they are not apart of god. If god is not subjective to the laws then the laws are not absolute and the whole argument falls apart anyways. But, the laws are logically sound and seemingly impossible, indeed, something cannot be something it is not. A rock will always be a rock even under a different name or if there no one there to label a rock it will still be a rock. So the logic is absolute, which would mean god cannot be an absolute being and still exist.

I'm sure this argument won't get past the "language barrier" and we will spend the whole discussion defining the word "god" or something but when you strip it down to its simplest form the laws of logic leave little room for a god in my opinion.

you can find a good outline of TAG at the CARM website (it won't let me post a link so you will have to google it) if interested, it is too much for me to post here.

Nice try but logic cannot disprove the existence of something.

 

[freethinker44]

Nice try but logic cannot disprove the existence of something.

Are you serious?

 

[sandandfoam]

Are you serious?

There is a tea-kettle orbiting somewhere around the sun; but it's such a small object that we cannot even detect it with any instruments.
Prove it doesn't exist

 

[freethinker44]

Only when a conceptual, untangible thing is applied to something tangible that we can use an idea purely conceptual like logic to prove or disprove something. Although it would an extreme waste of time, the tea kettle could be disproven maybe by sending out a satelite that set in an increasing orbit around the sun, eventually, if the kettle exists then the satelite will encounter it. This isn't really using logic though, logic by itself can only prove or disprove something that is conceptual by nature. To disprove something with a physical nature, logic must be used along with physical evidence. So you are right, logic ALONE cannot disprove something physical, only something conceptual.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

Why would you try to disprove the existence of God? If you're arguement is based on logic, then your position is already true by default.

Burden of proof is on the claim of existence.

I'm interested in the arguement that you can disprove a concept. Surely that's missing the point of what a concept is...

GhK.

 

[Riverwolf]

I recently heard about TAG (transcendental argument for god), and it seems strange to me why christians would use this argument. Not only does TAG not prove god exists, but I find it to be strong proof that god CANNOT exist.

I believe the first law makes gods existence impossible. It is the law of identity, that something cannot be something and not something at the same time. These laws are absolute, and christians would claim they are the physical manifestation of gods mind. Now, in order for these laws to be absolute, they must be objective. So they are true regardless of personal opinion or whether or not any mind is there to judge them at all.

So the law of identity states that something cannot be something and not something, and this is the ABSOLUTE (this is important terminology) unchanging law which reflects the mind of an absolute unchanging being (god). This is the christian argument, and it is perfectly sound... until you take a little further.

Here is my reasoning:
If the laws are absolute, then god cannot be something and nothing either, making god subjective to the laws. If god is subjective to the laws then they are not apart of god. If god is not subjective to the laws then the laws are not absolute and the whole argument falls apart anyways. But, the laws are logically sound and seemingly impossible, indeed, something cannot be something it is not. A rock will always be a rock even under a different name or if there no one there to label a rock it will still be a rock. So the logic is absolute, which would mean god cannot be an absolute being and still exist.

I'm sure this argument won't get past the "language barrier" and we will spend the whole discussion defining the word "god" or something but when you strip it down to its simplest form the laws of logic leave little room for a god in my opinion.

you can find a good outline of TAG at the CARM website (it won't let me post a link so you will have to google it) if interested, it is too much for me to post here.

This doesn't disprove God at all; it's just a counter (and a good one, at that) to ONE argument in favor of ONE concept of God.

 

[themadhair]

YouTube - "Slick" Logic.

/thread

 

[freethinker44]

This doesn't disprove God at all; it's just a counter (and a good one, at that) to ONE argument in favor of ONE concept of God.

In my opinion TAG was the best argument for god that came close to accomplishing its goal, and I just wanted to get a critical assessment of my thoughts on it.

While other concepts of god exist, the only one that is viable to me is the concept of an ultimate, absolute power, anything less I wouldn't consider to be a god. I mean if god wasn't absolute, then it would stand to reason that god can be overpowered, and if god loses power is he still a god, and if a god can lose power was he ever a god at all?

 

[freethinker44]

Greetings

Why would you try to disprove the existence of God? If you're arguement is based on logic, then your position is already true by default.

Burden of proof is on the claim of existence.

I'm interested in the arguement that you can disprove a concept. Surely that's missing the point of what a concept is...

GhK.

I disagree with the burden of proof being on them. If you look at it from their side, god is obviously there. God is just as plain to see as the tree in my front yard. So when someone claims that their god isn't there, they are making claims against something obvious.

Now in my opinion, if a blind man claims my tree isn't there and won't come with me to touch it so I can show him, why should I go out of my way to prove it. And I think a lot of religions feel this way about their god. After all most of the time people are taught their religions from birth, so they are not making claims they are simply asserting what they have always KNOWN in their minds to be true.

So really, WE are the ones who are making a claim against them.

For me, religion is like a hobby. If you enjoy learning about history or science or just about any other area of study, then you really can't escape religion so might as well address it.

 

[Riverwolf]

In my opinion TAG was the best argument for god that came close to accomplishing its goal, and I just wanted to get a critical assessment of my thoughts on it.

While other concepts of god exist, the only one that is viable to me is the concept of an ultimate, absolute power, anything less I wouldn't consider to be a god. I mean if god wasn't absolute, then it would stand to reason that god can be overpowered, and if god loses power is he still a god, and if a god can lose power was he ever a god at all?

Seems to me your focus is completely on the popular Abrahamic God-concept of a Fatherly King. (Or Kingly Father, if you prefer.)

Such a God, I agree, most likely does not exist. (Though there are those who would disagree, and that's okay; we're all entitled to our own opinions.)

 

[freethinker44]

You are right, most of my focus is on the abrahamic god. But TAG was a christian argument as I heard it, even though it sounds more like it seems unchristian and would more likely support a deists beliefs. I would use other objections for a deist version of god as this argument wouldn't work.

 

[freethinker44]

I will probably always focus on the abrahamic god. As long as someone is trying to force my kids to pray to that god in school then he is the priority.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I disagree with the burden of proof being on them. If you look at it from their side, god is obviously there. God is just as plain to see as the tree in my front yard. So when someone claims that their god isn't there, they are making claims against something obvious.

Nope, i'm sorry it doesn't work like that. If I say that the tree in your front yard isn't there and you can't see it with your eyes, regardless of whether or not I am correct, mine is the default position. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it's the way logic works.

If you then took me to the tree and I could see it with my eyes in the way that I previously denied, then I would be able to conclude that my position was incorrect. As the positions in this arguement are strictly boolean, I am able to conclude that you were correct.

In short, everything is incorrect until proven it is correct. True enough some things are easy enough to prove (Like the tree's existence), some things are much more difficult to prove (Like homocide in a court of law) and some things cannot be proven in the stardard way (Such as ghosts), but until I prove any of them to be true, they are false by default. This is the way it works. Otherwise I could claim the existence of anything invisible and it would be up to you to prove that I was wrong.

Innocence until proven guilty, freethinker

GhK.

 

[freethinker44]

I completely agree GiantHouseKey, that is exactly how it should work, but no one is programmed that way and unfortunately life isn't a judicial system. In most cases perception is reality until proven otherwise. I think that people on both sides should present their views instead of saying one side must prove theirs. Also, when the side that holds the burden of proof also holds the majority vote, it is sometimes in our best interest to pick up their burden for them.