[[Image:Button_argumentsfor.png|right|Arguments for the existence of god]]
==Overview==

===Apologetics===
As long as there have been two or more people with differing religious views, there has been proselytism. This of course presents a problem; as religion is based on faith rather than evidence, logic, or reason, how does one go about convincing other people that their religion is the correct one? After all, if it's based on faith and not reason, your faith is by definition really no more a reasonable position than anyone else's. If you don't like what the church is doing, just form your own. You don't need evidence, just faith. As a result of this complete lack of evidence on what the ''true'' faith apparently is, there are over 1,000 denominations of Christianity alone, and no empirical reason to believe any of them.

Over the years, attempts to convert people to a particular faith have taken many different forms, most of them involving brute force and threats of violence - Convert or suffer the wrath of god's chosen people! This was fine up until about the end of the Dark Ages, with the adage that-

''unknown source'':
{{Quote|Creationism lost its best argument when the Catholic church stopped burning people at the stake}}

After the enlightenment, the church started to have serious problems justifying its position. As science expanded our view of the world, God had fewer and fewer places to hide. Coupled with the fact that it was now considered slightly ''uncouth'' to simply torture and burn alive those that disagreed with you, the church and its parishioners now had to work very hard to justify their positions of belief, and harder still to convert others. Thus apologetics was born.

In a nutshell, apologetics is the discipline of attempting to justify a theological position through evidence, philosophy, science, metaphysics, and history. However, when these apologetics arguments are actually reviewed under scrutiny, we find they rely on:
* evidence so incredibly poor that even the apologists using it wouldn't accept such evidence as proof of anything in any other argument than for that of their personal god,
* horrific straw man representations of true scientific theories,
* convoluted metaphysics that ultimately have no real world underpinning, and
* the distortion of historically documented events and evidence in a fashion similar in degree and irrationality to holocaust denial.
There are many conflicting arguments which attempt to support the existence of many conflicting gods. Being often mutually contradictory, they can't all be correct - but they can all be wrong. Indeed, every "argument" presented for gods thus far has one or more problems with validity or soundness. At their core, even the most seemingly persuasive apologetics are founded upon cognitive biases, magical thinking, logical fallacies, or basic unproved assertions, and the fact that theists of all stripes tend to use the same arguments for their specific god or gods speaks more to the common flaws in human thinking than it does to the usefulness of the arguments.

===Definitions===
It is important when engaging in an argument with a theist that all the required concepts involved in the argument are clearly defined; [[''particularly'' the definition of God]]. Having clearly defined definitions prevents the theist from [[Moving goalposts|moving the goalposts]] mid-argument, or even more frustratingly getting to the end of the argument and then having the theists say “but that's not my god” or "[[that's not in my Bible]]".

===Purpose of the argument===
It is also important to make sure that the discussion is one that will be enlightening. An important question is, "what is the purpose of this discussion/argument?"

Prior to the onset of the hopefully dialectical discussion, both sides must reflect on the purpose and aim of the discussion. Argumentation will only prove to be fruitful if both sides are aware and accepting of the limits of persuasion in argumentation.

Religious people will almost never be "convinced" by any logically defeating counter-point, remaining staunch in their conviction, unless their faith is solely dependent on reason and proper logic. Therefore, it seems the appropriate middle-way seems to be to approach these discussions, on the whole, as forums for insightful discussion, rather than grounds for a conversion war, an approach that has proven and will continuously be proven to be ineffective in convincing religious theists to lay down their dogma.

It is important to consider the reason that successful logical arguments fail to convince theists is precisely that these theists were not convinced by logical arguments in believing in a divine being. It is usually based on personal experience, some subjective conviction that cannot be formulated into logical terms. It seems that even those who claim that their theistic belief is constructed upon some logically argumentative foundation, when pushed, eventually admit there is some fundamental subjective impetus for belief. However, if a particular theist maintains that they have a logical, objective foundation, but then dogmatically refuse to acknowledge the failure of his argument and are unwilling to question his theistic belief, then further communication is unnecessary and pointless.

==Favorite arguments==
===Most common theistic arguments===
* [[First cause]]
* [[Pascal's Wager]]
* [[Argument from design]]
* [[Argument from the meaning of life]]

===Favorites of professional apologists===
* [[Ontological argument]]
* [[Transcendental argument]]
* [[Kalam]]
* [[Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism]]

===See Also===
* [[Call for Proof]]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Christian apologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]

Problem of Hell

2011-11-24T15:40:32Z

Deliberatus: /* The existence of hell is necessary for the existence of heaven */

Like the [[problem of evil]], the '''Problem of Hell''' points out the contradiction in a supposedly just [[God]] who sends people to an eternal [[Hell]] to be punished for their transgressions. Religious believers differ over what actions warrant an eternal sentence in Hell, but the idea that not believing in a particular God is sufficient for you to deserve this punishment is common. The justice of this doctrine can be questioned by asking whether or not the punishment is proportional to the crime, as illustrated in the following example:

#The [[Christian]] god is a loving, just creator.
#Refusing to accept [[Jesus]]' gift of [[salvation]] renders an eternity of torment.

This central Christian doctrine leaves skeptics with a slew of objections. Why does God judge belief? Beliefs have little impact upon the world relative to the physical actions they inspire. We even realize this in our courts. A just being would punish wrongdoings and let the criminal go after accounting for their actions. Why would God trust finite beings with their infinite future? We would not allow a child to sign a legal document or make investments bound to affect the rest of their life, and yet God allows his creation complete control of their eternal soul! This objection is especially pertinent given the number of religions that make similar claims on the individual's soul. Since no faith appears to have stronger supporting evidence than any of the others, how is it just to punish an individual for making a good-faith effort to follow a different creed and/or philosophy?

==Counter-arguments==
===Infinite God, infinite sins===
Some theologians have argued that since crime committed against a finite being leads to a finite punishment, sin against an infinite god has infinite consequences. '''The problem is that we judge the severity of a crime based on the harm inflicted on the victim, not its lifespan. If God is omnipotent, by definition he can't be harmed. He is therefore punishing his creation for deeds that had absolutely no effect on himself'''. Furthermore, this objection falls short in failing to discriminate between different degrees of transgression. The real-life justice system gives out different punishments to offenders based on the severity of the crimes they committed. Under this standard of justice, there is only one crime--rejecting the word of God--and one punishment--eternal damnation in Hell. Given the indiscriminate nature of this punishment, one might question its desirability as a standard of justice.
However we can concede that, despite the despicable nature of a system that issues punishment based not on the severity of the offense but rather on the size of the offended, this fact alone does not prove that hell does not exist. Such a system would speak volumes about the grotesquely evil nature of the being who designed it, but would say nothing about its feasibility; none-the-less, if we take this notion seriously we find largely incompatible with most notions of salvation or post-life reward and punishment. For if we accept that a sin of any variety (from petty theft of an apple to the rape and murder of an entire nation) is offensive to an infinite god; and that an offended infinite being is infinitely offended by virtue of it's infinite nature; and that the person responsible for this offense is therefore deserving of an infinite punishment, then the converse must be true as well. By this infinite standard, any act which pleases god (according to the major theistic faiths this could range from a minor act of worship to the burning of an entire heard of cattle in ritual sacrifice) must bring it infinite pleasure and thus the person responsible is deserving of an infinite reward as a consequence. If this is true, then ultimately salvation can be earned by a single minor act of worship in much the same manner as a single minor offense can make one deserving of eternal damnation. It should be evident that any being capable of designing such a system of reward and punishment could not be characterized as either sane or as remotely concerned with fairness and justice. In all likelihood, if there were a being with the ability to design and create our universe, it would posses a level of sanity that wouldn't allow for the inclusion of a realm of eternal torture.

===By ignoring God, humans choose hell===
Theists have suggested that by ignoring God or rejecting the [[atonement]], humans also reject all prospects of a pleasant afterlife: God would not want to be with humans who denied him, and he wouldn't force them to be with him. On an infinite time scale, this is also morally unsound because the judging god is still giving thoughts and beliefs priority over physical actions. Given a choice between heaven or hell, most skeptics will prefer a continued existence with a god not believed in to eternal torment or eternal death.

===Moral actions require belief===
Other Christians believe that God judges humans by their [[glorification]] of him and his will, based on their adherence to his message as described in the [[Gospels]]. They believe that the only way to have the moral resume required to get into heaven is by believing in and accepting God. Like the other counter-arguments, this response forgets about the infinite time scale attached to it. It also implies belief in God to be the single most important moral action. The biblical God's omnibenevolence can still be questioned on the grounds that he prefers belief-inspired actions to regular good actions with infinite consequences.

=== The existence of hell is necessary for the existence of heaven ===

By far the cruelest response to the problem of hell. The argument goes something like this.

:: P1: A heaven where everyone is eternally happy and no one is excluded would not be possible.
:::: a) People get used to anything.
:::: b) People define happiness and pleasure in contrast to lack of happiness and pain.
:: P2: Pain or a lack of happiness cannot exist in heaven, even for a moment.
::: C1: Heaven can only exist if there is some pain outside of heaven, which can be observed by those within heaven.
:: P3: Those who go to heaven stay there forever.
::: C2: For all eternity, there must be some people outside of heaven who experience pain.
:: P4: The greatest possible happiness can only exist in contrast with the greatest possible pain.
::: C3: Some people outside of heaven must experience the greatest possible pain, i.e. the eternal torture called hell.
:: P5: God can only produce suffering upon those who deserve it (but that includes every person because everyone sins), so hell must be just.
:: P6: Those who go to heaven become morally perfect and must agree with God's moral judgments.
::: C4: The infinite pleasure felt by those in heaven is an exultation of God's justice in torturing the damned and his mercy in saving believers.

Note that the gist of this argument is not a proof for the existence of heaven or hell. Rather it is an argument claiming that in order for heaven to exist, the people who go there must watch (or at least constantly be aware of) other people being tortured in hell. Otherwise heaven wouldn't be pleasant enough to deserve the name. One can attack the premises in this argument, such as by denying P1.b), and/or by defining a heaven like what C.S. Lewis suggested, which eternally gets better and better so that one never tires of it.

However, perhaps a more powerful argument against this line of reasoning is the incredible sadistic cruelty that it entails. The suggestion is that the most important function of hell is for those in heaven to observe it as if it were a spectacle in the Roman Colosseum. That is, one gets to watch non-believers endure punishments like eternally burning without being able to die, and laugh and think "Well, glad that's not me!" and that is the only way that heaven is prevented from becoming boring. Most people would not ''want'' to go to a heaven like that, and they shouldn't!

The suggestion here is that the only way to be eternally happy is to feel a smug sadistic pleasure in being infinitely better and more prosperous than most other people. If that ''is'' true, the whole system seems to be built on selfishness, arrogance, and ill-will towards others. In that case, perhaps heaven and hell, as they are traditionally conceived of, ''should not exist''. (That is, being morally repugnant, it would be a crime against all that is good and loving were it to exist.)

[[Category:Arguments]]

Problem of Hell

2011-11-24T15:00:16Z

Deliberatus: /* Infinite God, infinite sins */

Talk:Theodicy

2011-11-24T14:47:03Z

Deliberatus:

Interesting. So, The omniscient is not all knowing when you hold their feet to the fire? May I have a source for this please, that I may quote it back to them?

Talk:Jesus died for your sins

2010-03-12T21:16:21Z

Deliberatus: drawing notice to a metaphysical underpinning

I'm not sure that all christians believe that jesus is god. I think that some view the 3 in the trinity to be parts of the same being, but others view the 3 as distinct beings. I'm not really sure about that, so I didn't want to edit the page. But the part about him going to heaven to be with god, his father, (who is also himself) only appies to the belief of some christians, not all (if I'm right). So maybe there should be something there that specifies that the part of this argument that points out that jesus is god only applies to the christians who believe jesus and god are the same?

:In general, we don't mean to imply that every usage of "Christians" necessarily means "all Christians". It's worth making the points you mentioned, though perhaps not in this article. This entry addresses a particular claim "Jesus died for your sins" and only addresses the question of divinity as one possible apologetic. For doctrinal assertions like this, we try to list a variety of counter-apologetics. Not all of them will be relevant to all interpretations or theologies, but they should all be relevant to some view. The issue of Jesus' divinity is one that should be addressed (it's worth noting that not all people who identify as Christians accept the notion of the trinity or the idea that Jesus was divine) - I'm just not sure that it's relevant to this point. Feel free to add it here (or in a more relevant article), someone can always go back and edit for clarity or relevance later. :) [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:59, 7 March 2007 (CST)

== thanks ==

Thanks for the clarification. I won't edit the page, though. Also, I'm sort of intimidated by the prospect of writing an article that people will be relying on for accurate, thorough information, so I might just stick to correcting spelling and grammatical errors that I see. It's a small job, but it's what I do best. I'm considering writing some articles, but it'll take forever to get them right. :)

: Pebbles, I think you should look at the Wikipedia article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BB being bold], and adopt that strategy. If you make an article that's full of errors, somebody will be along shortly to fix them.
: Also I'd like to point out that on the talk pages, you should make a habit of signing your posts. You can do this by ending the article with four tildes (~) in a row, or if you can't remember this, find the icon on top that looks like a scribbled signature. It's the second from the last button. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 21:30, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
----
Say, this entire thing, Christian and Jewish religion together, is dependent on one critical concept' that guilt is a transferable commodity. It is not of course.

This being the case, his dying on the cross accomplishes nothing whatsoever; you're still guilty.
the old Hebrew practice with the goat? Same thing. No transfer, guilt remains.

One of the critical foundation stones of the internal logic of both faiths is hopelessly flawed.
-Deliberatus Freeman

Transcendental argument

2010-03-12T17:12:56Z

Deliberatus: /* Fallacy of equivocation: 5.1-4 */

The '''transcendental argument''' for the existence of God (TAG) attempts to show that logic, science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of God.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument]

==Background information==
The standard requirement to the argument is that there are transcendental things such as science, logic, morality, and mathematics which are not physically in existence which are also part of reality (when you stop believing in them, they don't go away). Since these systems exist, *waves arms*, God exists.

The argument is popular within [[presuppositionalism]] and the associated apologetics. Presuppositionalism, however, tends to reverse the argument and simply begin at the conclusion. Logic depends on God, therefore you can't use logic to argue against God as that would be self-contradictory.

==Versions of TAG==
=== Version 1 ===
That is, knowledge cannot be obtained absolutely unless the source of that knowledge is itself an absolute source (read: being/God). Therefore, either you subconsciously believe in an absolute being that upholds and makes absolute the [[law]]s of the universe/[[morality]] or you do not—and ''can'' not—know anything for certain.

* There are some objective logical absolutes.
* We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
* These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
* These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
* Concepts require a mind.
* Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
* That mind is God.
* God exists.

=== Version 2 ===
Other iterations of the same general theme exist.

* Logic is rational, but atheism presupposes that everything comes from material sources.
* Logic isn't material, so atheism lacks any objective source for logic.
* Without an objective source for logic, atheism cannot employ logic.
* Therefore atheism is self refuting.
* Since atheism is refuted, theism must be true.
* God exists.

=== CARM.Org Version ===
This is the version of the Transcendental argument presented by Matt Slick of the CARM:
# Logical Absolutes
## Law of Identity
### Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
### For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.
## Law of Non-Contradiction
### Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
### For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
## Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)
### A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
### "I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
#### Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.
#### Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence "this statement is false" does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.
#### Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes.
# Logical absolutes are truth statements such as:
## That which exists has attributes and a nature.
### A cloud exists and has the attributes of whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air.
### A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite, marble, sediment, etc.).
## Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
### It cannot be true to state that a rock is not a rock.
## Something cannot bring itself into existence.
### In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions. Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.
## Truth is not self-contradictory.
### It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this.
## Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.
# Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse.
## If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
## If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
### For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non-contradiction).
### But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements.
## If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true.
## But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth.
## If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
# Logical Absolutes are transcendent.
## Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
### They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.
## Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
### They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
## Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.
### People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
### If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.
# Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
## Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
## Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
## Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
### If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
## But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
### For example, if the universe did not exist, it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence; that is, anything that did exist would have an identity, and whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
### Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world.
# Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
## Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
## Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not.
### If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.
### If they are non-conceptual by nature, then:
#### What is their nature?
#### If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical, then there must be a 3rd (or 4th...) option. What would that option be?
#### If another option cannot be logically offered, then the only options available to us are conceptual and physical.
#### Since logic is not a property of physical nature (see point 5 above), then we must conclude that they are conceptual by nature.
#### Simply "denying" that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical nature isn't sufficient.
# Thoughts reflect the mind
## A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
## Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
## Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
## We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.

==Counter arguments==
===Fallacy of equivocation: 5.1-4===
The first major problem with the argument occurs in 5.1-4 (carm.org version)

:5. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
::1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
::2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
::3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
:::1. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
::4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
:::1. For example, if the universe did not exist, it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence; that is, anything that did exist would have an identity, and whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
:::2. Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world.

This is a fallacy of equivocation. Two things of separate value are equated to be the same thing. The page on wikipedia uses the word 'light' as an example:
:A feather is light.
:What is light cannot be dark.
:Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
There are actually two separate aspects of logical absolutes to be considered. The conceptual statements such as 'A=A', and the physical underpinning on which the conceptual statement is based.
(aside; this also uses 2 different definitions of 'light': bright, and low weight. Consider soot fluff; it is low in weight, but quite dark; therefore the light can be dark, IF YOU TRACK WHICH DEFINITION IS IN USE. a<>A, for a and A are similar appearing symbols, but quite different indeed in substance. LIGHT and LOW WEIGHT are totally different concepts, and that which is dark might weigh very little. - Deliberatus Freeman )

It is true that the conceptual statement that 'A=A' cannot be photographed, frozen weighed or measured. It is an abstract. However the semantic statement refers to the physical nature of things that do exist and are material and are absolutely contingent on physical existence. Atoms are [Atoms]. Motion is not, [not motion]. Heat is not [heat and not heat] at the same time.

5.1-3 attempts to equates the conceptual semantic statement and the physical underpinning of that statement to be the same thing, and then continues in 6.1-2 to argue that the logical absolutes are only conceptual and therefore dependant on a mind.
The logical absolutes are not arbitrary prescriptive conceptual statements about what logic can and can't do. They are descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe, on which the laws of formal logic are then based.

Furthermore, 5.4 is an unfounded assertion. If the universe did not exist, neither would the three logical absolutes as they would have nothing to apply to. If nothing existed there would be no A to equal A. The underpinning of the logical absolute statements are dependant on something existing. The logical absolutes themselves are simply a fundamental property of material existence.

===Fallacy of division: 6.1===
The second major problem occurs in 6.1 (carm.org version).

:: 6.1 Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.

This is a fallacy of division. An attribute or property of a complete system is applied to an individual part of that system.
The example given at Wikipedia uses an air plane as an analogy:
:A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.
:A Boeing 747 has jet engines.
:Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.

Some other examples of Fallacy of Division would be:
:I have a concept of an apple, therefore the actual apple I'm holding in my hand is also conceptual

:My lust is emotional, therefore the object of my lust is also emotional.

:A car can be driven. Therefore the design of a car can also be driven.

The logical absolutes provide the underpinning and framework for the structure of formal logic. However, the fact that formal logic is of a purely conceptual nature does not necessarily mean that the underpinning of that formal logic is also purely conceptual.

As humans, we require linguistic ''signifiers'' in order to discuss the things and patterns we observe (i.e. the things and patterns ''signified''), therefore the logical absolutes have a conceptual existence insofar as we need words to signify them. This approach entails that logical absolutes are discovered through a process of the mind, rather than constructed. Thus logical absolutes are not conceptual by nature. Instead, they are a physical property of reality—observed by humans and pointed to with language.

Presumably, the theist does not intend to challenge the idea that ''we'' discover logical absolutes rather than construct them. A formal system of logic that constructs rather than discovers absolutes within reality would be incoherent (what meaning could absolute have in this context?) and useless. Any idea could necessarily be true. We know this isn't the case. Rather, the theist's intention is to show that God constructs the logical absolutes. Which, being necessarily conceptual, cannot be truly absolute without a stable, unchanging source. Since concepts reside only in minds, and the only stable, unchanging mind is God's, then the existence of logical absolutes necessitates God. This, as demonstrated above, is the fallacy of division.

===False dichotomy: 6.2 ===
The third major problem occurs in 6.2 (carm.org version)
::6.2 Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not.
:::1. If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.
:::2. If they are non-conceptual by nature, then:
::::1. What is their nature?
::::2. If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical, then there must be a 3rd (or 4th...) option. What would that option be?
::::3. If another option cannot be logically offered, then the only options available to us are conceptual and physical.
::::4. Since logic is not a property of physical nature (see point 5 above), then we must conclude that they are conceptual by nature.
::::5. Simply "denying" that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical nature isn't sufficient.

This attempts to set up a false dichotomy. This is where two options are presented as Boolean opposites (A or not A) where that is not necessarily the case (A or B).

If the logical absolutes are not physical and not conceptual there must be a 3rd or 4th option. What are they? The fact is that conceptual and physical existence are not a true dichotomy. In fact they are not even mutually exclusive.

:6.2.2 - Claims that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical. As is shown in the above sub-article for 5.1-4 Fallacy of Equivocation the logical absolutes have both a physical and conceptual counterpart. It isn't an either/or situation thus a 3rd option isn't required.

:6.2.4 - Claims that since logic is conceptual, the absolutes they are based on must also be conceptual. As is shown in the above sub-article 6.1 Fallacy of Division this is not the case.

It is also interesting to note, that by its very nature, this section of the argument specifically argues against the existence of anything spiritual, which doesn't leave much room for the theist assertion that a god exists somewhere outside of their mind, and also outside the physical reality we are able to observe and measure.

===Special Pleading: 7.1-4 ===
The final conclusion of the TAG argument is also logically invalid.

:7. Thoughts reflect the mind
::1. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
::2. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
::3. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
::4. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.

Even ignoring all the major fallacies up until this point, and accepting the false premise that the logical absolutes are purely conceptual, the final conclusion also makes a case of special pleading. The fact that human minds are capable of conceiving of the logical absolutes to make this very argument, is proof that these concepts are not dependant on an absolutely perfect supreme transcendent mind.

This section of the argument is also related to the [[ontological argument]]. Just because you semantically define something transcendent perfect and magical as existing doesn't mean it actually exists.

===The Number 4 Summary===
To summarise, a simple analogy to the logical absolutes would be abstract mathematics. The number 4 is “transcendent” by the TAG definition. It isn't a 'thing' that 'exits'. It cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured. It is always the number 4. It always remains the same. It always remains true.

However, if there were no minds in existence to conceive of the number 4, the shape we currently call a square would still have the same number of sides it has now. It would not physically gain or loose any sides. The abstraction of the number 4 is conceptual, but the concept isn't dependant on a transcendent mind for the real world underpinning of the concept to remain true.

== Other Counter-arguments ==
* TANG or the [[Transcendental argument against the existence of God]] attempts to show that such logical absolutes cannot be absolutes if they are subjective by being God based. God could simply ignore the number 7 or believe that killing children is good and the logical absolutes would change. Therefore, they would not be logical absolutes or objectively true but rather subject to the whims of God. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Transcendental_argument_for_the_non-existence_of_God
* So what? Many [[non-theist]]s, when they are backed against the wall, will admit that they know nothing with 100% certainty. Humans generally will prefer some explanation rather than no explanation. However, providing "some explanation" does not make the claims in the explanation true. [[Absolute certainty]] is in general meaningless as by definition one would have to be [[omniscient]] to acquire it. [[Atheist]]s do not in general make claims to the absolute truth of things; this is usually the domain of the [[theist]].
* An example of what some may call absolutely certain is the idea that the [[sun]] will rise tomorrow. To be truly absolute in certainty, you would require precognition; however, that is generally useless. It's much more accurate to state that based on the evidence of many days prior as well as our understanding of chemistry and the composition of stars that the sun will not soon cease to rise.
* Even, for the sake of argument, accepting every point made, the only conclusion drawn is that there must be at all times intelligence. Unless God is defined only as a something capable of conceptualizing the rules of logic -- of which, most mammals by necessity are able to grasp in a rudimentary sense -- the existence of a god is still unsubstantiated.

==Links==
===See Also===
* [[Equivocation]]
* [[Fallacy of division]]
* [[Fallacy of reification]]
* [[False dichotomy]]
* [[Special pleading]]
* [[Ontological argument]]

===External Links===
* [http://www.carm.org/ Christian Apologetics Research Ministries] – Matt Slicks website
* [http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/10/sorry_denise_-_but_god_didnt_m.php Sorry, Denise but God didn't make numbers] – Article by Mark Chu-Carroll PhD on Good math, Bad math.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GET502pP3go&feature=channel Slick Logic] – Youtube Theoretical BS run down on the TAG argument.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo Atheist experience #593] – Youtube AE television debate between Matt D and Matt Slick.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GET502pP3go&feature=channel Matt/Matt Debate] – Youtube Theoretical BS commentary of the atheist experience debate.

===Reference===
* [[Wikipedia:Transcendental argument for the existence of God]] – Wikipedia article

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Transcendental arguments]]

So you believe in nothing?

2010-03-12T14:54:28Z

Deliberatus:

Christians often respond to assertions of atheism with the question, "'''So you believe in nothing?'''" Such a question not only patently mischaracterizes the nature of atheism, but it betrays one of the inherent problems in Christian doctrine, the potential for development of a type of "Christian nihilism," in which adherents see all meaning and value as only derived from God.

In a similar way that accusations that atheism is immoral, as it lacks guidelines dictated from a "higher power," this question essentially implies that humans are incapable of independent and complex thought, a concept heavily debunked in numerous examples worldwide. Begin by considering the fact that many Buddhists, despite having complex systems of dogma and spiritual beliefs, are atheists by definition, in that they reject the concept of any sort of god. While some schools of Buddhism differ from this interpretation, there are significant numbers of people practicing what otherwise fits the definition of a religion, while asserting that their beliefs and dogma come not from a divine authority.

How, then, is a "true" atheist any different? Countless schools of philosophy serve as a basis for development of secular belief. Consider (secular) existentialism, which revolves around the concept of self-discovery and finding meaning and value in a way relevant to one's own life and worldview. Many philosophers and self-described existentialists have written works detailing quite complex systems of epistemology (in a sense, "What can we know?"), morality, and more without ever involving God.

Whether an atheist describes themselves as an existentialist or not, the framework of existentialism shows how, outside of the bounds of any defined religion, one may easily find belief, meaning, and value secularly.

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]

----
Christians are the best friends Atheists have, for they tear down every faith not their own. All an Atheist has to do is reveal the defects in the Christian religion, and retire to his rest; all else has been done for him already. -Deliberatus Freeman
----

Talk:Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs?

2010-03-12T14:47:02Z

Deliberatus: a reply to the question this pages title asks.

I updated this section with a quick summary, but am not opposed to someone changing or rewriting it completly!

We may want to add headings and separate this into sections
-Why beliefs are important
-Examples of harm
-Etc.

Our understanding of reality guide us in our lives, how we plan them, how we LIVE them.

Recently, a small society of persons, guided by how they think, armed with box cutting knives, hijacked 4 jet airliners and committed a crime against humanity on the 9th of September 2001.

How we think is important, as ideas have consequences.

So if there is indeed a omnimalevolent deity who created the universe as an entertainment to enjoy watching us suffer, we should figure this out and conspire to do acts of revolt against it, knowing all the while that no good deed shall go unpunished, for this is how the universe was built.

Should we determine that the deity is off and gone, non interventionary, and now the universe is created we are on our own, we should cease to expect event by event intervention and deal with the situation at hand on our own, and learn to get good at it.

THIS is why we need to determine truth. And while we need free thought to do this, this does not equate to or justify an immunity to rational criticism of our thoughts.
-Deliberatus Freeman