Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Atheism plus

2012-11-07T17:32:00Z

RDouglasEzell:

The Urban Dictionary lists Atheism Plus as:

:"A bunch of frauds. Despite having atheist in its name it really isn't atheism at all. Their goal is to subvert atheism with the religion of feminist indoctrination and bitch about non existent misogyny.

:To these people any legitimate questioning of feminists and female privilege is grounds for calling anyone a misogynist. Atheism Plus is really nothing more then an attempt at co-opting the meaning of atheism.
:Atheism Plus is nothing more than dogmatic feminists trying to commandeer the atheist movement. This will set back Atheism for decades if these usurpers gain popularity."

This definition has the overwhelming majority of votes over the alternate definition:

:"Atheism Plus designates spaces, persons, and groups dedicated to promoting social justice along with skepticism and critical thinking, and countering misogyny, racism, homophobia/biphobia/transphobia, ableism and other such bigotry inside and outside of the atheist community.
:Atheism as such includes none of those ideas, being merely a lack of belief in gods; Atheism Plus is essentially an answer to the "now what" question that focuses on treating prejudice as woo.

:"We are...
:Atheists PLUS we care about social justice,
:Atheists PLUS we support women’s rights,
:Atheists PLUS we protest racism,
:Atheists PLUS we fight homophobia and transphobia,
:Atheists PLUS we use critical thinking and skepticism."

:"It’s time for a new wave of atheism ... that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime."

:(Jen McCreight)"[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheism%20Plus]

== Atheism Plus Dogma ==

The Atheism Plus forum's members, moderators, and administrators do not tolerate discussions which 'apply critical thinking to everything'. In particular, they hold certain ideas of feminist philosophy as beyond question. If you disagree with them, they conclude you are wrong and ask you to lurk more and educate yourself. If you do not agree that you are wrong, then have the audacity to make a case to support your position, you shall get summarily dog-piled and banned.

Some points of feminist philosophy and other notions that Atheism Plus holds dogmatically:

'''Privilege:''' Privilege is similar to what scientists call bias; however, privilege is unidirectional. Only dominant oppressors, such as whites, males, and the wealthy, have privilege. Those that they oppress, such as non-whites, females, and the poor, do not have privilege. Indeed, from their non-privileged position they possess greater insight into the truth of the matter than their oppressors. Privilege is also used as an ad hominen attack to dismiss the feelings, arguments, or concerns of those considered privileged: "Your privilege is showing", "Check your privilege".

'''Schrodinger's Rapist:''' It is men's fault that women fear getting raped. As such, it is the man's obligation to go out of his way to fix this problem. Remedies include reading a woman's body language before approaching them, considering the environment and asking ones self, "If I were a rapist, would this woman be safe from me?," and not raping women.

'''The Patriarchy:''' A Patriarchy is a government where positions of power are held primarily by men. However, in feminist philosophy "The Patriarchy" is a monolithic and nebulous conspiracy by men for the purposes of subjugating women. The patriarchy has many manifestations, such as 'the glass ceiling' and unequal pay for equal work.

'''Intent is not fucking magic:''' While in the world at large, intent makes the difference between murder and unlawful homicide, intent means nothing to the Atheism Plus forum. If you inadvertently post a word or image that triggers someone's post traumatic stress disorder, you did harm, should admit that you were wrong, and apologize.

== Atheism Plus History ==

Atheism Plus was started with posts by Blag Hag, Jen McCreight, in August of 2012.
[http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/]
[http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/atheism/]

Atheism Plus initially received a mixed reception in the atheist community. (citations and expansion welcome)

=== A+ Scribe ===

"The mission of A+Scribe is to bring access to media in the Atheism Plus movement (and eventually beyond) to Deaf and Hard of Hearing readers.

We will strive to honestly, accurately, and completely transcribe as many media resources as we are able."[https://a-plus-scribe.com/doku.php]

A+ Scribe was announced on August 30, 2012 with Gretta Christina's blog post, "Atheism+’s First Project: A+ Scribe!"[http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/30/atheisms-first-project-a-scribe/] Some controversy broke out in the comments when Anna Johnstone expressed concern about first getting permission from content owners to have their works transcribed. The founder of A+ Scribe, trinioler stated that there were some cases where A+ Scribe would ignore the wishes of the content owner and make transcriptions 'for the greater good'. Anna Johnstone insisted that they should take the high ground and respect the wishes of content owners. She was subsequently dogpiled into leaving for expressing her concerns.

=== The Dillahunty Incident ===

On October 2, 2012 @KaineDamo tweeted about Atheism Plus's banning of Skep_tickle, and directed one of these tweets to [[Matt Dillahunty]].

Matt Dillahunty created an account at the Atheism Plus forum named 'Curious' in order to show that the Atheism Plus detractors were blowing things out of proportion. After having a post declined, Matt Dillahunty followed the instructions in an automated email to correct the problem by starting this thread on the forum [http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1502]. In the course of this post, 'Curious' got dog-piled.

This dog-pile included a remark by the moderator SubMor, "You know what serves as a functional one-way ticket to don't-take-me-seriously-ville? Saying you have "legitimate questions" and are just "trying to help" by showing up and demonstrating what a smart person you are. Instead of, you know, actually participating in the community.".

'Curious' replied, "You should probably know who you're talking to before making accusations about actually participating in the community.
It might be nice if you knew the content of the original post before disregarding it. Sincerely, Matt Dillahunty".

'Curious' and Matt Dillahunty were banned from the Atheism Plus forum which demanded an apology for the damage he had done. The reason given on the Atheism Plus wall of shame: Running a social experiment on the membership, by posting via the sockpuppet Curious.[http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1258].

Matt Dillahunty posted a video about the incident on youtube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRFLV9GlFw0]. In response to this video, the Atheism Plus forum demanded an apology. [http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1615]. Matt Dillahunty responded with another youtube video, refusing to give an apology. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHBwaa1_n0o] Further back and forth occurred on comments of The Lazy Canuck's blog post, "Matt, I really think you owe them an apology."[http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/10/06/matt-i-really-think-you-owe-them-an-apology/] Matt Dillahunty refused to give the Atheism Plus forum an apology. The Atheism Plus forum set up a thread for people to discuss how Matt Dillahunty had harmed them.[http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1616]

=== Atheism+ Emergency Support Project ===
On October 20, 2012, After a vote in the Athiems Plus forum for a big project, members decided to start the Atheism+ Emergency Support Project: "A freecycle-esque project to give support to those who need it. We would do things like give information to people who are in emergency situations- for example, connecting someone in an abusive situation with information on a local shelter- or connecting people in need of goods with others who have things to spare."[http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2235] At the time of this writing, the project is still in its early days.

Atheism plus

2012-11-07T17:22:28Z

RDouglasEzell: Created page with "The Urban Dictionary lists Atheism Plus as: :"A bunch of frauds. Despite having atheist in its name it really isn't atheism at all. Their goal is to subvert atheism with the ..."

The Urban Dictionary lists Atheism Plus as:

:"A bunch of frauds. Despite having atheist in its name it really isn't atheism at all. Their goal is to subvert atheism with the religion of feminist indoctrination and bitch about non existent misogyny.

:To these people any legitimate questioning of feminists and female privilege is grounds for calling anyone a misogynist. Atheism Plus is really nothing more then an attempt at co-opting the meaning of atheism.
:Atheism Plus is nothing more than dogmatic feminists trying to commandeer the atheist movement. This will set back Atheism for decades if these usurpers gain popularity."

This definition has the overwhelming majority of votes over the alternate definition:

:"Atheism Plus designates spaces, persons, and groups dedicated to promoting social justice along with skepticism and critical thinking, and countering misogyny, racism, homophobia/biphobia/transphobia, ableism and other such bigotry inside and outside of the atheist community.
:Atheism as such includes none of those ideas, being merely a lack of belief in gods; Atheism Plus is essentially an answer to the "now what" question that focuses on treating prejudice as woo.

:"We are...
:Atheists PLUS we care about social justice,
:Atheists PLUS we support women’s rights,
:Atheists PLUS we protest racism,
:Atheists PLUS we fight homophobia and transphobia,
:Atheists PLUS we use critical thinking and skepticism."

:"It’s time for a new wave of atheism ... that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime."

:(Jen McCreight)"[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheism%20Plus]

== Atheism Plus Dogma ==

The Atheism Plus forum's members, moderators, and administrators do not tolerate discussions which 'apply critical thinking to everything'. In particular, they hold certain ideas of feminist philosophy as beyond question. If you disagree with them, they conclude you are wrong and ask you to lurk more and educate yourself. If you do not agree that you are wrong, then have the audacity to make a case to support your position, you shall get summarily dog-piled and banned.

Some points of feminist philosophy and other notions that Atheism Plus holds dogmatically:

'''Privilege:''' Privilege is similar to what scientists call bias; however, privilege is unidirectional. Only dominant oppressors, such as whites, males, and the wealthy, have privilege. Those that they oppress, such as non-whites, females, and the poor, do not have privilege. Indeed, from their non-privileged position they possess greater insight into the truth of the matter than their oppressors. Privilege is also used as an ad hominen attack to dismiss the feelings, arguments, or concerns of those considered privileged: "Your privilege is showing", "Check your privilege".

'''Schrodinger's Rapist:''' It is men's fault that women fear getting raped. As such, it is the man's obligation to go out of his way to fix this problem. Remedies include reading a woman's body language before approaching them, considering the environment and asking ones self, "If I were a rapist, would this woman be safe from me?," and not raping women.

'''The Patriarchy:''' A Patriarchy is a government where positions of power are held primarily by men. However, in feminist philosophy "The Patriarchy" is a monolithic and nebulous conspiracy by men for the purposes of subjugating women. The patriarchy has many manifestations, such as 'the glass ceiling' and unequal pay for equal work.

'''Intent is not fucking magic:''' While in the world at large, intent makes the difference between murder and unlawful homicide, intent means nothing to the Atheism Plus forum. If you inadvertently post a word or image that triggers someone's post traumatic stress disorder, you did harm, should admit that you were wrong, and apologize.

== Atheism Plus History ==

Atheism Plus was started with posts by Blag Hag, Jen McCreight, in August of 2012.
[http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/]
[http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/atheism/]

Atheism Plus initially received a mixed reception in the atheist community. (citations and expansion welcome)

=== A+ Scribe ===

"The mission of A+Scribe is to bring access to media in the Atheism Plus movement (and eventually beyond) to Deaf and Hard of Hearing readers.

We will strive to honestly, accurately, and completely transcribe as many media resources as we are able."[https://a-plus-scribe.com/doku.php]

A+ Scribe was announced on August 30, 2012 with Gretta Christina's blog post, "Atheism+’s First Project: A+ Scribe!"[http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/30/atheisms-first-project-a-scribe/] Some controversy broke out in the comments when Anna Johnstone expressed concern about first getting permission from content owners to have their works transcribed. The founder of A+ Scribe, trinioler stated that there were some cases where A+ Scribe would ignore the wishes of the content owner and make transcriptions 'for the greater good'. Anna Johnstone insisted that they should take the high ground and respect the wishes of content owners. She was subsequently dogpiled into leaving for expressing her concerns.

=== The Dillahunty Incident ===

On October 2, 2012 on twitted @KaineDamo tweeted about Atheism Plus's banning of Skep_tickle, and directed one of these tweets to [Matt Dillahunty].

Matt Dillahunty created an account at the Atheism Plus forum named 'Curious' in order to show that the Atheism Plus detractors were blowing things out of proportion. After having a post declined, Matt Dillahunty followed the instructions in an automated email to correct the problem by starting this thread on the forum [http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1502]. In the course of this post, 'Curious' got dog-piled.

This dog-pile included a remark by the moderator SubMor, "You know what serves as a functional one-way ticket to don't-take-me-seriously-ville? Saying you have "legitimate questions" and are just "trying to help" by showing up and demonstrating what a smart person you are. Instead of, you know, actually participating in the community.".

'Curious' replied, "You should probably know who you're talking to before making accusations about actually participating in the community.
It might be nice if you knew the content of the original post before disregarding it. Sincerely, Matt Dillahunty".

'Curious' and Matt Dillahunty were banned from the Atheism Plus forum which demanded an apology for the damage he had done. The reason given on the Atheism Plus wall of shame. [http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1258].

Matt Dillahunty posted a video about the incident on youtube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRFLV9GlFw0]. In response to this video, the Atheism Plus forum demanded an apology. [http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1615]. Matt Dillahunty responded with another youtube video, refusing to give an apology. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHBwaa1_n0o] Further back and forth occurred on comments of The Lazy Canuck's blog post, "Matt, I really think you owe them an apology."[http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/10/06/matt-i-really-think-you-owe-them-an-apology/] Matt Dillahunty refused to give the Atheism Plus forum an apology. The Atheism Plus forum set up a thread for people to discuss how Matt Dillahunty had harmed them.[http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1616]

=== Atheism+ Emergency Support Project ===
On October 20, 2012, After a vote in the Athiems Plus forum for a big project, members decided to start the Atheism+ Emergency Support Project: "A freecycle-esque project to give support to those who need it. We would do things like give information to people who are in emergency situations- for example, connecting someone in an abusive situation with information on a local shelter- or connecting people in need of goods with others who have things to spare."[http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2235] At the time of this writing, the project is still in its early days.

Talk:Sermon on the Mount

2010-11-25T13:27:50Z

RDouglasEzell: This page needs to be reverted to a previous version

Perhaps rather than the archaic KJV we should use the ESV? The ESV is a modern translation with moderately liberal copyright permission, as long as you're using < 1,000 verses you don't require their permission http://www.gnpcb.org/page/esv.copyright --RobHu

== Who template ==

Regarding my removal of the {{t|who}} template that was added to the lead section of this article, interested parties should see [[User talk:Mvuijlst]]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:52, 2 November 2008 (CST)

== This page needs to be reverted to a previous version ==

[[DSand78]]'s edits butchered this page, removing practically all criticism of the sermon on the mount. It is amusing to look through the edits. I particularly liked how they replaced 'religious' with 'atheistic' in the rant against fasting before removing that section altogether.

DSand's edits need to be reverted imo.

--[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 07:27, 25 November 2010 (CST)

Atheism is based on faith

2010-11-25T13:20:53Z

RDouglasEzell: Section misconstrued atheism as strong atheism.

[[Apologists]] often claim that '''atheism is based on faith''' — that is, not believing in a [[god]] requires just as much [[faith]] as belief does, if not more. [[Norman Geisler]] expressed this argument in the title of his book, ''[[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist]]''.

==Apologetics==

[[Let Us Reason Ministries]] offers this expression of the argument:[http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo7.htm]

:"To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient knowing all things having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen."

Theists treat belief in God as a default belief, and they will often back this up with some variation of the [[argument from design]].

Moreover, while a person would need perfect knowledge of the universe to know 100% for certain that no god exists, he doesn't need said knowledge to disbelieve in a specific god's existence. For example, if the god is defined well enough that one can examine the definition for logical fallacies, one may do so. If the god is not logically consistent then one is justified in their disbelief, even if they don't know 100% for sure that the god doesn't exist.

==Counter-apologetics==

*The use of the word "faith" is an attempt to mislead based on the [[equivocation]] fallacy. As the article on [[faith]] mentions, the two primary meanings of the word are:
# Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
# Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

*One can reasonably claim that atheism is based on "faith" using the first definition. However, the way this claim is often made implies that the second definition is being used, which is incorrect.

*Since theists make a positive claim which is extraordinary in nature, the [[burden of proof]] is on the theist to prove that there is a God. Most theists do not "believe in" [[leprechaun]]s, yet they would not consider a request to prove the non-existence of leprechauns to be reasonable. There is no reason why anyone should believe in leprechauns or God without positive [[evidence]].

*There is [[evidentiary argument|strong evidence for atheism]]. There is no evidence for theism. We require [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence|strong evidence for theism]]. We require no evidence for atheism. The case for atheism exceeds the required amount of evidence. The case for theism falls staggeringly short.

*It is laughable to equate the nonacceptance due to a [[Evidentiary argument|complete lack of evidence for something and good reasons to suppose otherwise]] to the leap needed to believe such a thing.

*Theists commonly consider faith to be a virtue. It seems odd, then, that they would criticize atheism for being based on faith. Moreover, the argument implies that the more faith a proposition needs the less likely it is to be true, a claim many counter-apologists welcome considering the evidence.

*In addition, asserting that atheists claim to "know" that there is no God is based on a misunderstanding of the word atheist. See the article on [[atheist vs. agnostic]].

*Further, no legal system on earth requires absolute certainty for the determination of cases. In England, for example, a criminal case must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' - or in the modern formulation, "so that you (the juror) are sure"; civil cases need only be proved 'on balance of probabilities'. If the level of proof required by Let Us Reason Ministries in the quote above were required, hardly a judge or jury could reach a decision in a legal dispute.

*Theists often [[backslide]] and have trouble maintaining faith in their religion. [[Atheist]]s occasionally convert to theism, but do not tend to slip into various god-beliefs due to ''the strain'' required to maintain a no belief in any god. If atheist were a faith group they should share the difficulties the religious have in maintaining their faith.

* [[Tu quoque]]! This argument exists to defend religious faith claims by claiming that atheists fall into the same category. This serves to derail the argument and prevents focusing on the lack of evidence for religious faith. Beyond shifting the [[burden of proof]] the argument serves as a [[non-sequitur]]

==See also==
* [[Atheism is a religion]]

==External link==
* [http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/omniscience.htm Myths About Atheism: Must Real Atheist Know Everything to Deny God?] at [[atheism.about.com]]

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Relativism

2010-11-25T13:12:32Z

RDouglasEzell: /* This section simply doesn't hold. */

{{wikipedia}}
{{wiktionary|relativism}}
'''Relativism''' refers to any of several similar philosophical concepts:
; [[Moral relativism]] : holds that "[[moral]] or [[ethical]] propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral [[truth]]s, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism]</sup> It is in opposition to [[moral absolutism]].
; [[Cultural relativism]] : is the ''[[Wikipedia:Methodology|methodological]]'' principle in [[wikipedia:anthropology|anthropology]] that "an [individual's] [[belief]]s and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own [[culture]]."<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism]</sup>
; [[Wikipedia:Cognitive relativism|Cognitive relativism]] (or [[epistemological relativism]]) : "claims the truth or falsity of a statement is relative to a social group or individual."<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_relativism]</sup>
; [[Wikipedia:Aesthetic relativism|Aesthetic relativism]] : is an [[Wikipedia:Aesthetics|aesthetic]] philosophy that "the judgement of [[beauty]] is relative to individuals, cultures, time periods and contexts, and that there are no universal criteria of beauty."<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic_relativism]</sup> (Somewhat less controversial than the other three.)

Because of the similar sounding name, [[Einstein]]'s (completely ''unrelated'') [[theory of relativity]] can sometimes be confused with these more-controversial philosophical positions.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

User talk:BunniRabbi

2010-11-18T15:12:14Z

RDouglasEzell: /* Relativism page's Internal Consistency section */

== Relativism page's Internal Consistency section ==

Hi there. I don't think your section on Internal Consistency on the [[Relativism]] page works as currently presented.

While I think that you present a good argument against epistemic relativism, the argument doesn't touch other forms of relativism. As such, it should not be presented as a general attack on relativism.

If you think that you presented an argument against relativism in general, I'm afraid its just a straw man. For instance: A moral or cultural relativist may be an epistemic realist persuaded that reality does not impose any absolute standards on morality or culture beyond natural selection. You could not employ [[reductio ad absurdum]] against such positions as you do in your section, since it could be absolutely true that reality does not impose any absolute standards on morality or culture.

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 08:57, 11 November 2010 (CST)

Why wouldn't you apply the same reasoning against morality or culture and simply get the same results? Perhaps I'm missing the essence of your response.

I don't see this as a reduction ad absurdum, it an internal consistency issue shown through application.

I'm not implying that reality does not impose any absolute standards on morality or culture. Where do you see that implication?
--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 12:35, 16 November 2010 (CST)

I said that the argument doesn't work since someone could hold as absolutely true that reality does not impose any absolute standards on morality or culture. Lets focus on morality.

One could believe that there are no absolutely no absolute moral standards without inconsistency. Such a person would be both a realist concerning truth and a relativist concerning morality.

Now, take your argument and apply it to them:

"First take the standard claim of relativism, that all points of view are equally valid relative to the standards of those views, and that no truth exists outside of views."

one would probably respond: "I do not believe that all points of view are equally valid relative to the standards of those views, and I never claimed that no truth exists outside of views. This doesn't apply to my position in any way."

"Then consider that if all points of view are true according to their frame of reference, then realism is also true according to its framework."

one would probably respond: "Since your first assertion had nothing to do with my position, this second assertion also has nothing to do with my position. Moral Relativism does not say that all moral views are true according to their frame of reference. Therefore, it is never implied that moral realism is also true according to its framework. Indeed, I claim that it is absolutely true that moral realism is untenable. Is killing moral? Who is doing the killing of what? Without defining that relation, its impossible to answer the question. Soldiers killing enemies may be moral. Butchers killing cows may be moral. A Duke killing a King in order to usurp power may be immoral. We really need more information before coming to a decision. Situations are full of relations that effect what we deem moral or immoral. Without relativity, there are no moral questions; hence, a non-relative or absolute morality is absurd."

"Realism says that there exists truth outside of viewpoints, so if realism is true then relativism is not, but as shown realism is true according to relativism."

one would probably respond: "Once again, moral relativism never claims that moral realism is true. That was just a straw man, and while straw men may be simple to pick apart... it doesn't accomplish anything more than picking apart the straw man."

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 09:51, 17 November 2010 (CST)

"I never claimed that no truth exists outside of views"
What definition of relativism are you working from?

As per Dictionary.com:
Relativism –noun Philosophy .
any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.

--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 16:26, 17 November 2010 (CST)

I was quoting from [[Relativism]], specifically words contributed by [[BunniRabbi]] as of 07:40, 27 October 2010 according to this history page for that page[[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Relativism&diff=prev&oldid=14815]].

If you want to abandon your own premises, the conclusion fails to get supported by them. Perhaps that entire internal consistency section should get deleted.

However, similar arguments can be made against epistemic relativism. For instance, if it is absolutely true that 'all is relative', then the statement refutes itself. If it is not absolutely true that 'all is relative', then there could exist some absolutes. Of course, such arguments only hold against epistemic relativism. To refute moral or cultural relativism one would have to actually demonstrate some moral or cultural absolute.

--[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 09:12, 18 November 2010 (CST)

== Atheism is based on faith ==

On the [[Atheism is based on faith]] page, you added:

"In a strict Epistemological sense atheism can be said to rest on faith, in that all knowledge must come through thought and/or sensory information, and both are fallible. By this understanding of the term "faith" however, the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow, that there is such a thing as "Tuesday", and that you, the reader, exist, are also based on faith."

to the main section.

I have to disagree with you completely here. Atheism, or not believing that a god exists, is not knowledge. It is lack of belief in a god. I would dare say that a person born with no sense organs, trees, and even rocks do not believe in a god. As such, they would be atheistic. In any case, absolutely no epistemic leaps of faith are needed not to believe in a god.

I don't mean to be picking on you. I'm pretty new to this wiki stuff and am just surfing the recent changes.

Have fun.

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 09:26, 11 November 2010 (CST)

I am not saying that Atheism is knowledge, I am saying that it is a statement of conviction, which implies the speaker takes it as knowledge. If you say "There is no God", it means that "I believe it is factual that there is no God." There is an implication of belief.

"I would dare say that a person born with no sense organs, trees, and even rocks do not believe in a god. As such, they would be atheistic."
I'm not sure what the relavence is here. That person does not have data to support their belief, but belief is belief weather or not there is a reason for the belief.

In what way can their be knowledge which does not require that leap of faith? All knowledge comes through the senses postpriori or through reason a priori, or through a combination of the two. One must then either trust the senses or reason, and usually both. That trust is an epistemic leap.--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 12:37, 16 November 2010 (CST)

A theist is one who believes there exists god.

An atheist is one who does not believe there exists god.

There is no middle ground. Either one believes in god, or they do not.

Does a person who was never introduced to the concept of a god believe in god? If so, they are a theist. If not, they are an atheist.

Does a tree believe in god? If so, it is a theist. If not, it is an atheist.

Does a rock believe in god? If so, it is a theist. If not, it is an atheist.

I realize the last two examples are rather silly, but it illustrates the point. ''It does not take any conviction whatsoever to not believe in something.'' The one exception would be to not believe in something that is evident. For instance, it would take some conviction to not believe that you think while you are thinking.

It would take some conviction to believe that there does not exist a god, but that position goes beyond atheism to anti-theism or what some people call positive atheism.

Knowing things without taking any epistemic leap is irrelevant here. Not believing that there exists a god is not knowledge or conviction. Just like not walking isn't a form of exercise and not sitting isn't a form of rest.

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 10:10, 17 November 2010 (CST)

Again, as per Dictionary.com:

Atheism –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

An atheist is not one who lacks a belief in god, an atheist is one who disbelieves in god.
The rock lacks a belief in god, but it does not actively disbelieve in god.
The colloquial and traditional idea of atheism, as shown by the first dictionary definition, is positive atheism. What you are talking about is called passive atheism (definition 2). The term antitheist (no hyphen needed) actually refers to passive atheism:

Dictionary.com:
Antitheist
An`ti*the"ist\, n. A disbeliever in the existence of God.

As this is a counter-apologetics site, use of the term as an active conviction (definition 1) is consistent. If you are actively arguing against a belief in god it is not appropriate to say that you are passively without a conviction on the subject.

"Knowing things without taking any epistemic leap is irrelevant here."
It is relevent because by epistemic definition knowledge includes belief. I understand that colloquial definitions do not include this as part of the definition, but that is why I prefaced the statement with "In a strict Epistemological sense".

--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 16:47, 17 November 2010 (CST)

[[Atheism]] as per the Iron Chariots wiki and as promoted by [[The Atheist Experience]] and [[The Non-Prophets]], which features the creator of ironchariots.org, [[Matt Dillahunty]]. [[Atheism]] as I use the word as an [[Atheist]]:

<blockquote>An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods. Atheism is the corresponding philosophical position. This commonly used definition does not assume any positive claim of the nonexistence of a god.</blockquote>

If you want to define atheism and atheism in some other way, perhaps you should try rewriting the [[Atheism]] page and see what happens. Words and their meanings are defined by use, not dictated by authority. As the word [[atheism]] is used in the context of this wiki, I think the definition provided by the wiki might carry a bit more weight than dictionary.com[http://dictionary.com].

Still, fun having this conversation even if we disagree.

--[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 08:51, 18 November 2010 (CST)

User talk:BunniRabbi

2010-11-18T14:51:10Z

RDouglasEzell: /* Atheism is based on faith */

== Relativism page's Internal Consistency section ==

Hi there. I don't think your section on Internal Consistency on the [[Relativism]] page works as currently presented.

While I think that you present a good argument against epistemic relativism, the argument doesn't touch other forms of relativism. As such, it should not be presented as a general attack on relativism.

If you think that you presented an argument against relativism in general, I'm afraid its just a straw man. For instance: A moral or cultural relativist may be an epistemic realist persuaded that reality does not impose any absolute standards on morality or culture beyond natural selection. You could not employ [[reductio ad absurdum]] against such positions as you do in your section, since it could be absolutely true that reality does not impose any absolute standards on morality or culture.

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 08:57, 11 November 2010 (CST)

Why wouldn't you apply the same reasoning against morality or culture and simply get the same results? Perhaps I'm missing the essence of your response.

I don't see this as a reduction ad absurdum, it an internal consistency issue shown through application.

I'm not implying that reality does not impose any absolute standards on morality or culture. Where do you see that implication?
--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 12:35, 16 November 2010 (CST)

I said that the argument doesn't work since someone could hold as absolutely true that reality does not impose any absolute standards on morality or culture. Lets focus on morality.

One could believe that there are no absolutely no absolute moral standards without inconsistency. Such a person would be both a realist concerning truth and a relativist concerning morality.

Now, take your argument and apply it to them:

"First take the standard claim of relativism, that all points of view are equally valid relative to the standards of those views, and that no truth exists outside of views."

one would probably respond: "I do not believe that all points of view are equally valid relative to the standards of those views, and I never claimed that no truth exists outside of views. This doesn't apply to my position in any way."

"Then consider that if all points of view are true according to their frame of reference, then realism is also true according to its framework."

one would probably respond: "Since your first assertion had nothing to do with my position, this second assertion also has nothing to do with my position. Moral Relativism does not say that all moral views are true according to their frame of reference. Therefore, it is never implied that moral realism is also true according to its framework. Indeed, I claim that it is absolutely true that moral realism is untenable. Is killing moral? Who is doing the killing of what? Without defining that relation, its impossible to answer the question. Soldiers killing enemies may be moral. Butchers killing cows may be moral. A Duke killing a King in order to usurp power may be immoral. We really need more information before coming to a decision. Situations are full of relations that effect what we deem moral or immoral. Without relativity, there are no moral questions; hence, a non-relative or absolute morality is absurd."

"Realism says that there exists truth outside of viewpoints, so if realism is true then relativism is not, but as shown realism is true according to relativism."

one would probably respond: "Once again, moral relativism never claims that moral realism is true. That was just a straw man, and while straw men may be simple to pick apart... it doesn't accomplish anything more than picking apart the straw man."

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 09:51, 17 November 2010 (CST)

"I never claimed that no truth exists outside of views"
What definition of relativism are you working from?

As per Dictionary.com:
Relativism –noun Philosophy .
any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.

--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 16:26, 17 November 2010 (CST)

== Atheism is based on faith ==

On the [[Atheism is based on faith]] page, you added:

"In a strict Epistemological sense atheism can be said to rest on faith, in that all knowledge must come through thought and/or sensory information, and both are fallible. By this understanding of the term "faith" however, the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow, that there is such a thing as "Tuesday", and that you, the reader, exist, are also based on faith."

to the main section.

I have to disagree with you completely here. Atheism, or not believing that a god exists, is not knowledge. It is lack of belief in a god. I would dare say that a person born with no sense organs, trees, and even rocks do not believe in a god. As such, they would be atheistic. In any case, absolutely no epistemic leaps of faith are needed not to believe in a god.

I don't mean to be picking on you. I'm pretty new to this wiki stuff and am just surfing the recent changes.

Have fun.

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 09:26, 11 November 2010 (CST)

I am not saying that Atheism is knowledge, I am saying that it is a statement of conviction, which implies the speaker takes it as knowledge. If you say "There is no God", it means that "I believe it is factual that there is no God." There is an implication of belief.

"I would dare say that a person born with no sense organs, trees, and even rocks do not believe in a god. As such, they would be atheistic."
I'm not sure what the relavence is here. That person does not have data to support their belief, but belief is belief weather or not there is a reason for the belief.

In what way can their be knowledge which does not require that leap of faith? All knowledge comes through the senses postpriori or through reason a priori, or through a combination of the two. One must then either trust the senses or reason, and usually both. That trust is an epistemic leap.--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 12:37, 16 November 2010 (CST)

A theist is one who believes there exists god.

An atheist is one who does not believe there exists god.

There is no middle ground. Either one believes in god, or they do not.

Does a person who was never introduced to the concept of a god believe in god? If so, they are a theist. If not, they are an atheist.

Does a tree believe in god? If so, it is a theist. If not, it is an atheist.

Does a rock believe in god? If so, it is a theist. If not, it is an atheist.

I realize the last two examples are rather silly, but it illustrates the point. ''It does not take any conviction whatsoever to not believe in something.'' The one exception would be to not believe in something that is evident. For instance, it would take some conviction to not believe that you think while you are thinking.

It would take some conviction to believe that there does not exist a god, but that position goes beyond atheism to anti-theism or what some people call positive atheism.

Knowing things without taking any epistemic leap is irrelevant here. Not believing that there exists a god is not knowledge or conviction. Just like not walking isn't a form of exercise and not sitting isn't a form of rest.

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 10:10, 17 November 2010 (CST)

Again, as per Dictionary.com:

Atheism –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

An atheist is not one who lacks a belief in god, an atheist is one who disbelieves in god.
The rock lacks a belief in god, but it does not actively disbelieve in god.
The colloquial and traditional idea of atheism, as shown by the first dictionary definition, is positive atheism. What you are talking about is called passive atheism (definition 2). The term antitheist (no hyphen needed) actually refers to passive atheism:

Dictionary.com:
Antitheist
An`ti*the"ist\, n. A disbeliever in the existence of God.

As this is a counter-apologetics site, use of the term as an active conviction (definition 1) is consistent. If you are actively arguing against a belief in god it is not appropriate to say that you are passively without a conviction on the subject.

"Knowing things without taking any epistemic leap is irrelevant here."
It is relevent because by epistemic definition knowledge includes belief. I understand that colloquial definitions do not include this as part of the definition, but that is why I prefaced the statement with "In a strict Epistemological sense".

--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 16:47, 17 November 2010 (CST)

[[Atheism]] as per the Iron Chariots wiki and as promoted by [[The Atheist Experience]] and [[The Non-Prophets]], which features the creator of ironchariots.org, [[Matt Dillahunty]]. [[Atheism]] as I use the word as an [[Atheist]]:

<blockquote>An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods. Atheism is the corresponding philosophical position. This commonly used definition does not assume any positive claim of the nonexistence of a god.</blockquote>

If you want to define atheism and atheism in some other way, perhaps you should try rewriting the [[Atheism]] page and see what happens. Words and their meanings are defined by use, not dictated by authority. As the word [[atheism]] is used in the context of this wiki, I think the definition provided by the wiki might carry a bit more weight than dictionary.com[http://dictionary.com].

Still, fun having this conversation even if we disagree.

--[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 08:51, 18 November 2010 (CST)

User talk:BunniRabbi

2010-11-17T16:10:43Z

RDouglasEzell: /* Atheism is based on faith */

User talk:BunniRabbi

2010-11-17T15:51:42Z

RDouglasEzell: /* Relativism page's Internal Consistency section */

User talk:BunniRabbi

2010-11-11T15:26:41Z

RDouglasEzell: Atheism is based on faith

User:RDouglasEzell

2010-11-11T15:06:02Z

RDouglasEzell:

Hello, my name is R. Douglas Ezell, and I thought I'd add my [[reductio ad absurdum]] of the [[classical laws of logic]] variant of the [[transcendental argument]] to this wiki.

I am an atheist, and very much enjoy watching [[The Atheist Experience]] and listening to [[The Non-Prophets]].

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 09:06, 11 November 2010 (CST)

User talk:BunniRabbi

2010-11-11T14:57:11Z

RDouglasEzell: Relativism page's Internal Consistency section

User talk:Dcljr

2010-11-11T14:42:43Z

RDouglasEzell: Relativism page's questionable section.

Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:47, 26 August 2006 (MST)

==Welcome==
Welcome! I'll be busy with the NP show today, but I wanted to get a quick response in. I looked over the issues in your sandbox and it's nice to have someone who knows about wikis, I've been learning as we go along. With regard to the redlinks issues: some of them I wasn't aware of, and some I intentionally avoided editing (like help) until I knew exactly what I wanted to include. Feel free to edit those pages as you like and, as time permits, I'll focus on them too.

Some answers to questions in your "Other Issues" section:
* Is there an [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map interwiki map] here?
** <s>No. I had actually just started reading about this the other day. It's definitely on the "to do" list, though there are only a handful of wikis that I'd bother including here.</s>
** Evidently, it's always been enabled and there were 174 links in the default list. I've added them to the discussion page and will find a way to modify those pages to have a "most used" list, "full list" and "suggested" list. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 18:15, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
* <s>Why are sig timestamps in MST when server time is UTC according to [[Special:Preferences|Preferences]]?</s>
** <s>I have no clue. I'll dig around a bit.</s>
** This should be corrected now. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
* Why using <nowiki>[[internal links]]</nowiki> to bolden title words in first sentences of articles (see, e.g., [[Counter-apologetics]]) instead of <nowiki>'''triple-apostrophes'''</nowiki>?
** Because we saw it done that way...and didn't check the manual of style. :) This should be probably be changed, though I'm curious whether or not it's a better solution.
* [[Special:Search/fubar|Search for "fubar"]] results in following statement (provided by [[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]]): ''There is no page titled ":fubar".'' (note placement of colon)
** I'll look into this one too, I'm pretty sure that it's due to changes we attempted to make when setting up the wiki. Essentially, I wanted the URL to display as '''wiki.ironchariots.org/pagename'''. Shawn ran into some problems with, I think, the Apache rewrite...I just haven't focused on changing it.
** Still investigating this, it's an odd one. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
As for the other items, feel free to change them, and anything else you find wrong. If the reason for the change is unclear or if you feel there's a gross conceptual error that should be avoided, perhaps you could add them to a list in the Help section, or something. In any case, I'm off to get things ready for the show, thanks for contributing! - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:06, 26 August 2006 (MST)

== Wow ==

Dcljr, I'm blown away by all that you're doing to bring this wiki up to speed with a professional look. Thank you thank you thank you for all the work that you've done this weekend. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 04:20, 28 August 2006 (MST)

Hey, I just remembered something that we wanted to put in a while ago. We were going to have a template that linked Bible verses. I was just messing with it again and it currently looks like this: <nowiki>{{Bible|John|3:16}}</nowiki> -> {{Bible|John|3:16}}

The problem is that when you use a book with spaces in it, such as <nowiki>{{Bible|1 Kings|1:1}}</nowiki> it looks like this: {{Bible|1 Kings|1:1}}. The extra space messes up the intended link. Is there a way to replace spaces in the second field with "%20"?

--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:19, 28 August 2006 (MST)

: Hmm. I don't know, I'd have to just look around Wikipedia to find out (which, unfortunately, I'm not going to do right now — I need to get to sleep at some point). I know it'd be a lot easier if you were linking to a wiki (with interwiki linking enabled — Matt's apparently looking into that), since then you wouldn't be constructing the URL "from scratch" but just using a wiki-link, where spaces don't matter. (Even "blind searches" can be done this way, using <nowiki>[[Special:Search/</nowiki>''Search term(s)'']]. BTW, this would fix the problem you've had with {{[[Template talk:WP-name|WP-name]]}}.) Might have more to say about this in a few days... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:11, 29 August 2006 (MST)

:: Well it turns out that there is another wiki called "[http://www.wikibible.com/ wikibible]" -- which appears to just provide a search function for Bible Gateway, but it might work. I've heard you talk about interwiki links but I have no knowledge of how to set them up.

::: I've been researching this and it's going to take some work. There is no easy, automated process, you have to actually jump into the database and modify tables in order to setup the links. The nice thing is that it doesn't matter whether the link is a wiki or not, you could setup an interwiki link to Bible Gateway or Dictionary.com. I'll probably do this, but let's put together a list of what we want/need first. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:20, 29 August 2006 (MST)

:::: I've set up a page at [[Project:Interwiki map]] to start hammering out the details. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:28, 29 August 2006 (MST)

== Admin page ==
The entries there are fine. Indefual hasn't been around, but I think his primary interest was in getting this up and running for us. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:05, 28 August 2006 (MST)

Speaking of the admin page, you'll need to update it again - I've added you as a sysop. I have a new project at work which is keeping me busy and preventing me from doing much work on the wiki, at least for the next week or so. Considering your knowledge and contributions, it just made sense that you shouldn't have to wait around for me if something needs to be done. Hopefully this status change, is acceptable, I probably should have asked first - but it's easy to change. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 08:42, 30 August 2006 (MST)
:No, that's fine. Thanks. On larger wikis (especially the large Wikimedia ones) I tend to resist becoming an admin (in fact, I'm only an admin on one other, low-traffic, non-Wikimedia wiki) because I don't really want the additional responsibility that comes with the additional power(s). But this wiki is still pretty low-key (i.e., no disputes, vandalism, etc., to speak of), so it should be okay.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:31, 30 August 2006 (MST)

==Interwiki comments==
You wrote, on my [[User_talk:Sans_Deity|talk]] page (sorry for the cross-page discussion, this was just the quickest way to get a response out before I head to work):
{{quote|Please compare these links to the default links listed on the talk page and modify/remove from this list." I'd like to respectfully object for the following reasons: Each wiki is free to use their own list of interwiki links and I've never liked some of the choices made by other sites (/ MediaWiki maintainers), especially metawikipedia — a perfectly horrible choice, if you ask me. In the list I started I was trying to use "logical", "obvious" prefixes. Maybe I misunderstood your note, but it sounds like you're preferring to stick to the default choices listed on the talk page.}}
For clarification (and I'll try to get some work done on this later today), the list that appears there is the default list which exists in the database when the wiki is installed. As it turns out, the interwiki function has always been enabled for each of the sites in that list. I'll probably delete some of the ones on that list, but here's what I think needs to be done, at a minimum:
<div style="text-decoration:line-through">
* The main [[Project:Interwiki map]] page should:
** Describe the interwiki function and include a table of available/most common/recommended shortcuts
** Include a link to the "full map" [[Project:Interwiki map (full)]] (which may be smaller than the current list, as some defaults should be removed)
* A new page, perhaps [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)]] should be created and, essentially, take the purpose and content of the current [[Project:Interwiki map]] page (a place to request new links - and a place to note those that should be removed)
* For each of the current recommended/suggested sites:
** If it already exists on the default table, that needs to be noted and:
*** We need to decide whether or not it's "ok as is" or whether it needs to have a different shortcut
** If it doesn't exist, it should live on the [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)]] page until added
</div>
::: All of this has been set up, though changes may need to be made - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:24, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
That's what I was thinking, in a nutshell. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:30, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

== Latin or English nomenclature ==

A while back, there was [[Talk:Argumentum ad baculum]] a bit of a discussion, and it was decided that logical fallacies should be kept under their formal (usually Latin) name, and that English synonyms should be redirects to the Latin page.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to changing the rule, but I'd like for there to be consistency.
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:Consistency was the goal. In some cases, it may be argued that the formal name is the more popular version. In some sense, it doesn't make any difference where the article lives as the redirects essentially make them equivalent. The only place where this becomes truly problematic is when we're looking at a page on logical fallacies that links to all of them, or the appropriate category page. On an article page, I think I'd actually prefer a list that links to the formal name and includes the common name in parentheses, for clarity. The category page seems to be the only sticking point. I'm wondering if a redirect page could also have the category link - so that the category page has a link to both articles, even though one simply redirects to the other? -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:: Putting redirects in categories seems like the best solution, IMHO, if it works. Kind of like an index that lists synonyms of a concept. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:: Yup, it works. I guess I should start categorizing redirects, unless someone can whip up a bot to do that. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:32, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

::: I think we can go with manual categorizing, since there should only be a small number of cases where it's necessary. Follow-ups on this topic should perhaps be dealt with on [[Project talk:Categorization]]? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 20:36, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:::: I'm a big fan of automation. Perhaps in an ideal world there'd be a magic template for redirects, call it <nowiki>{{Synonym}}</nowiki>, that means, "fix the categories for this redirect to be the same as whatever it points to". But you're correct that at least for now, there are few enough cases that they can be maintained manually.
:::: This is slightly nontrivial in that we don't want all redirects to appear in the category listings: as discussed above, it'd be good for both "[[Petitio principii]]" and "[[Begging the question]]" to appear in a category listing, but we don't want to do that with, say, "[[God]]", "[[Deity]]", and "[[Deities]]". (I guess this is a lot of words to say that we're basically in agreement.) --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:44, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

== Question about categories ==

I noticed that you put [[Religion]] in <nowiki>[[Category:Religion|*]]</nowiki>.
As I understand it,adding a pipe and a sort string tells MediaWiki to alphabetize according to the sort string. So adding <tt>|*</tt> tells it to put [[Religion]] in the "*" tab of the index.
Is that what you intended to do? If so, why put it under "*" instead of leaving it under "R"?
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 15:40, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

== Hares Chew Cud ==

Should i just manualy format the referances? or just wait for a <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag to be implimented? {{unsigned|Narmical}}
: Replied on [[User talk:Narmical|your talk page]]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:11, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
::Well i have a version saved on my computer that doesnt use the template, so no biggie [[User:Narmical|Narmical]] 08:20, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

== Denis's introduction ==

Thanks for adding the latest [[The Non-Prophets]] introduction. Ironically enough, though, this was the first one that Denis mailed me. I was going to copy and paste it in, when I saw that you'd already transcribed it. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 22:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

== Failed template ==

Yeah, it was a pretty lame attempt. I was trying to get a template merge, finally I just grabbed the template for wikify from this wiki and called it a day. No real need to be fancy, just wanted something to say that [[Jesus fulfilled prophecy]] is pretty much a dupe of [[Messianic prophecy]], and was feeling adventurous in the realm of cargo cult programming. If you notice when I trashed the template for ambox I used 'fail' as the summary. Although, actually the wikify and merge templates probably share like 95% of the same info and could be rereferenced to an box template (which would help if those templates needed a change). [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 04:19, 20 November 2007 (CST)

== Section header. ==

Okay, I'll work on that. Just seems a shame to have a big fancy header to quickly not something of interests to apologetics or the like. I'll stick with the format better. [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 15:38, 28 November 2007 (CST)

== Oops Sorry ==

Thanks Dcljr, in my rush to contribute I didn't read all the help guides (sorry). --[[User:TheRedFerret|TheRedFerret]] 12:28, 4 September 2008 (CDT)

== Signing Comments ==

I'll try to remember, thanks! [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 13:13, 2 December 2008 (CST)

== Translating to portuguese ==

Hi. I don't know the correct way to ask it. I would like to start the translation of this wiki to my mother tongue: portuguese. I noticed that there's no translations to any languages here. What should I do to start? Can you help me with this?

[[User:BrightMan|BrightMan]] 09:45, 21 April 2009 (CDT)

==Layout Standardisation==

Hey dude, no one's commented one way or the other on the template i devised in my sandbox to standardise layout across multiple similar pages. I've basically got nothing planned this weekend so i thought it would be a good time to start, but i thought i'd better check with an admin before i went making large changes to multiple pages.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 03:51, 11 December 2009 (CST)

:You're probably getting sick of my questions by now, but i figure since you've had allot of wiki editing experience you'd be the best person to ask. What would be the legalities of us copying and pasting the code from Template:Navbar on Wikipedia to use on Iron Chariots? --[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 06:38, 14 December 2009 (CST)

::Yet another stupid question. It seems that as the mediawiki documentation is kept as a wiki itself, the documentation is updated in parallel with the mediawiki software. As a result i'm finding it almost impossible to find documentation on versions as old as the one used by Iron Chariots.
::In particular, i'm wondering about custom links on images rather than having them default to the image file in the wiki commons area. On the wiki documentation it says to use the tag <nowiki>[[Image:Pic.jpg|link=Main_Page]]</nowiki> but on the mediawiki 1.6.3 testbed i'm running on my laptop, the "link=" ends up being the caption and it still defults to the wiki commons area. I was wondering if you knew the code to get this working properly on older versions.
::Oh, i've also got another question about copyright. As i understand, Iron Chariots is pretty strict about referencing the KJV bible for copyright reasons. How far would fair use allow for if we were to have a page comparing passages from different versions including the NIV and NLT?--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 00:47, 20 December 2009 (CST)

==Implication, biconditional==
Yeah, in hindsight, I probably should have redirected implication to the [[Material implication (if then)]] redlink. When i was looking in the double redirects, the (if and only if) was actually going through [[if and only if]] > [[biconditional]] > [[implication]] so i kindof went from there without thinking as much as i prbably should have. That being said the article appears to cover both implication and biconditional so its seem to me a moot point which its labelled at the moment. Basically I'm planning on cutting the implication stuff out and pasting it back into the [[Material implication (if then)]] so that all of the formal logical operators have their own separate sections as defined in the [[Template:Formal logic|Formal logic]] Navbox, just haven't had time yet. I've been on planes trains and automobiles for the last 2 days and I'll probably be doing family stuff for the next 2 or 3. I promise I will get around to fixing this tinsie snafu though.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 17:17, 23 December 2009 (CST)
:Thats fair enough. I was actually using wikipedia as a source for terminology, and they use the term material implication so i just copied that. You're right though, it probably should just be implication.
:As for the parentheses titles; I think they may still be useful. I understand what you're saying about keeping the simplest titles for the pages, or more aptly, not unnecessarily complicating things, but i suspect that most laymen (myself included) think of the logical operators in terms of their usage (if then) (And) (Xor) etc. I think the logic section would be more easily navigable to our average reader if the functional operators were included in the title rather than just the name of the operator that many many not be familiar with. That's my argument anyways. If you still think it needs to be changed though that's fine too--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 17:27, 24 December 2009 (CST)

== Relativism page's questionable section. ==

Hi, I just wanted to point out that the [[Relativism]] page has had a section labeled Internal Consistency added by [[BunniRabbi]] that presents an argument against epistemic relativism as though it were against relativism in general.

Being a noob, I didn't want to modify the page myself.

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 08:42, 11 November 2010 (CST)

Talk:Relativism

2010-11-11T14:36:26Z

RDouglasEzell:

== Internal Consistency Section Objection ==

The internal consistency section added by [[BunniRabbi]] presents an argument against relativism in general that only applies to epistemic relativism. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the relativism already addressed on this article.

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 08:36, 11 November 2010 (CST)

Transcendental argument

2010-11-05T14:33:55Z

RDouglasEzell: /* Other Counter-arguments */

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 equate 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 'exists'. 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 lose 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 for the non-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.
* 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.
* Reductio ad absurdum<br/>The version of the transcendental argument for the existence of God which claims that the classical laws of logic depend upon God may be refuted simply by pointing out that its conclusion, if taken seriously, is absurd.<br/>If the classical laws of logic depend upon God for their existence, then the classical laws of logic must not apply to God. If they did, this would be like a mother giving birth to her mother, a ceiling supporting itself in the air, or an effect causing itself or the cause of its parent cause.
**Since the law of the excluded middle would not apply to God: any statement about God, as well as its negation, may both be true. So, “God exists,” and “God does not exist,” may both be true. Demonstrating “God exists,” would fail to imply that “God does not exist,” is false.
**Since the law of non-contradiction would not apply to God: contradictory statements about God may be true. Therefore, “God exists and does not exist,” may be true.
**Since the law of identity would not apply to God: God may be other than, or not, God.
:If this variant of the transcendental argument for the existence of God is accurate, any attempt to think rationally about God proves itself absurd. This, of course, includes any and all logical arguments for the existence of God, including this variant of the transcendental argument for the existence of God. It would also render all other claims made concerning God meaningless.

==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]]

Transcendental argument

2010-11-04T14:07:59Z

RDouglasEzell: /* Other Counter-arguments */

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 equate 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 'exists'. 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 lose 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 for the non-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.
* 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.
* Reductio Ad Absurdum

The version of the transcendental argument for the existence of God which claims that the classical laws of logic depend upon God may be refuted simply by pointing out that its conclusion, if taken seriously, is absurd.

If the classical laws of logic depend upon God for their existence, then the classical laws of logic must not apply to God. If they did, this would be like a mother giving birth to her mother, a ceiling supporting itself in the air, or an effect causing itself or the cause of its parent cause.

Since the law of the excluded middle does not apply to God: any statement about God, as well as its negation, may both be true. So, “God exists,” and “God does not exist,” may both be true. Demonstrating “God exists,” would fail to imply that “God does not exist,” is false.

Since the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God: contradictory statements about God may be true. Therefore, “God exists and does not exist,” may be true.

Since the law of identity does not apply to God: God may be other than, or not, God.

If this variant of the transcendental argument for the existence of God is accurate, any attempt to think rationally about God proves itself absurd. This, of course, includes any and all logical arguments for the existence of God, including this variant of the transcendental argument for the existence of God. It also renders all other claims made concerning God meaningless.

==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]]

Talk:Transcendental argument

2010-11-03T15:20:27Z

RDouglasEzell: /* Other points */

== Opening line, "Human Minds" and an Equivocation Fallacy ==

I would change

'''The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). Wikipedia defines the argument as follows:'''

'''"The Transcendental Argument is an argument for the existence of God that 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."[1]'''

to

'''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."[1]'''

Or similar. But the opening sentence "The transcendental argument for the existance of God (TAG)." isn't really a sentence yet, but I don't want to change it since it's a work in progress and the author(s) might have other things in mind.

The counter argument to 4.3 should be added: logical absolutes shouldn't be dependent on any mind, however Slick is sneaky and specifies it only applies human minds. And I believe Matt said on AETV 6.1 contains an equivocation fallacy where logic is equivocated to be the same as logical absolutes, and I believe Matt gave an example of something else to demonstrate the silliness of what Slick is trying to say here, but I forget. While these may specifically focus on the CARM version I feel they are important as various combinations of the argument can be presented, and being able to spot out the possible flaws is always useful. --[[User:Aardvark|Aardvark]] 08:01, 17 June 2009 (CDT)

== Counter to Section 6 of Carm.org's TAG ==

Possible counter-arguments to section 6:

• If the physical/conceptual dichotomy is true, then God must be either physical or conceptual. If God is physical, then he would necessarily be part of the universe, and couldn't have created it. If God is conceptual, then he is the product of another mind, which is then subject to the same dichotomy, leading to an infinite regress of minds.

• If the physical/conceptual dichotomy is not true, then Logical Absolutes are not necessarily conceptual in nature, and thus do not require a mind. If they do not require a mind, then God does not necessarily exist.

• Further, the Logical Absolutes, being absolute, would apply to God. God cannot be God and not God at the same time and in the same sense. Therefore the Logical Absolutes could not be the product of God's transcendent mind since they are necessary for that mind to be able to exist in the first place.
--[[User:Denada|Denada]] 14:22, 17 June 2009 (CDT)

== Needs to address what is meant by "logical absolute" ==

Logical statements are only meaningful within a specified system of logic. It is not justified to appeal to some "ultimate" or "universal" logical system that exists independent of human minds, which is the unstated major premise at the heart of TAG. Logical absolutes are only absolute ''within'' a system, which can be defined however one chooses (although there are no guarantees that an arbitrarily defined system will be useful). The wikipedia article on formal systems [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_system] gives a good (but rather technical) overview of how logic is developed.

== Response from Set Theory Axioms ==

I just got handed the trascendental argument by an old friend on facebook, here's the response I came up with after consulting with after consulting some friends, do with it what you will:

Logical absolutes exist only in the systems for which they are defined. The law of Identity, that is A=A, is a mathematic axiom that is used (among others) to define what numbers can and can't be.

I believe that you were going to argue that logical absolutes have to exist, and that since they were discovered by man, they predate him and exist in nature. Therefore *something* must have made them. This argument stems from a misunderstanding about the nature of logic and math.

The law of contradiction, which you are using (that is that "A=A" and "A=NOT A" cannot both be true at the same time) is an axiom added to make sure that A=A never breaks.

So: sure, there can be things that are absolutely consistent with one another, but they have no truth value outside of their internally-consistent context. There is nothing further involved.

<div style="width:100%; text-align:right;">--[[User:Jd|Jd]] 00:26, 21 July 2009 (CDT)</div>

== There are no "Logical Absolutes" ==

The basic flaw in Matt Slick's argument is that largest component does not exist. Forgive me for repeating the previous 2 posts a little, but this needs emphasis. I have observed and participated in CARM's discussions on Transcendental Argument for God [TAG] and will sum up its largest flaw.

In mathematics, there is no term of "Logical Absolutes" [LA], and a quick search will reveal that Matt Slick is the only person using this term. Previous versions of TAG the came from Calvinists and then Reformed Christians using the term, "Laws of Logic". This term does exist and refer to the same three axioms that LA refer to; just they were labeled the "Laws of Logic" by Aristotle and it stuck. To mathematicians they are the "Laws of Classical Logic", because that is close enough to what they are. So there is the short version of the history, and now on to the present.

Many attempts were made to explain to Matt Slick that the specific three axioms that he labeled "Laws": the law of identity, of excluded middle, and of non-contradiction; are not laws and are not absolute. That they are not absolute was covered in a previous post. To sum up... Different axioms exist for different formal systems of mathematics and while these three axioms (a=a, a!=b, a!=~a) exist in many formal systems, they do not exist in all. Many references were made to trivalent logic, to fuzzy logic, and to quantum mechanics; which between the three exclude each axiom at least once.

Another topic of discussion centered around the fact that the 3 axioms are not laws. Therefore, Matt attempted to assert that the existence of axioms supported TAG. However, axioms are not what they used to be. An axiom by definition is something that is assumed to be true or obvious to be true. Since the start of the 20th century, mathematicians have endeavored to actually prove axioms. A major breakthrough came when Godel coding demonstrated a uniform method to prove nearly all axioms in nearly all formal systems (it is very abstract and difficult, like post doctoral difficult). As such, an axiom is no longer an 'axiom' as previously defined, but rather a proven conclusion that we use as a basis for common understanding. Another part of Godel's work was his incompleteness theorem which stated (warning, I am not a professional mathematician) that the axioms of a given formal system could never completely account for the formal system. In other words, axioms are not even absolute within their own formal system. This is easily demonstrated in Classical Logic aka the logic of everyday speech and reasoning: "The statement is a lie"; and is commonly known as a paradox (my favorite is Russell's Paradox).

The obvious conclusion is that TAG is based on something that does not exist and the supporters of TAG have no clue about the principles, language, or history of mathematics. Matt Slick demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the existence of formal systems and of the translation of "law of identity" into "a=a". His language/terms surrounding LA; like absolute, transcendent, universal, etc. are either mis-uses of actual terms or fictitious terms. And finally, his formulation of TAG does not continue the tradition of his Reformed and Calvinist forefathers, on the contrary it is entirely of his own invention excepting the 3 axioms of classical logic.

maconnor34 27 Dec 09

PS. I'd like to see something like this in the main article, but don't have the cojones to attempt that.

== Other points ==

Just to raise some points here; The article seems to lack a rebuttal of the first and second 'versions' of the transcendental argument, and the following rebuttal should be considered (in my opinion);

For god to exist, existence being that one consists of matter or energy, he must consist of matter or energy
for god to be transcendant, he must not consist of matter or energy.
Therefore, as a transcendant being does not consist of matter or energy, a transcendant being cannot exist.

Can anyone see any flaws in that rebuttal, or any reasons why it shouldn't be included? --[[User:Daemonowner|Daemonowner]] 07:36am 11/07/10 (UTC)
:Yes, I see a flaw in it:

:''"Existence being that one consists of matter or energy."''

:But if God actually does exist, then existence is '''not''' limited to things consisting of matter and energy. Thus, the theist has no reason to accept this premise unless you've ''already'' proven that God doesn't exist.

:You can't make your premises depend on the conclusion being true. It's basically a circular argument. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 03:32, 11 July 2010 (CDT)

=== Reduction Ad Absurdum ===

I have argued against a version of this argument in secondlife as Dar Innis against Shotgun Smythe, a presuppositionist dominionist. In such a forum, the counter arguments currently provided here are cumbersome and hard to pull off.

Much easier to pull off, and humorous, is a simple reductio ad absurdum.

If the laws of logic depend upon God to exist, they come after God and cannot apply to God. As such:

Since non-contradiction does not apply to God, God must both exist and not exist.

Since the excluded middle does not apply to God, any statement made about God, as well as its negation, must be true. So, God did and did not write the Bible.

Since identity does not apply to God, God cannot be God.

For God to transcend the laws of logic, God must become a complete absurdity of which no rational discussion is possible.

One response to this line was to claim that God could produce the laws of logic and still have them apply to himself. I replied that this would be like a rock supporting itself in the air, or a mother giving birth to her mother. If the laws of logic did not exist, then God made them exist, the the laws of logic could not have applied to God at the time God would have made them. Therefore, God both made the laws of logic and did not make the laws of logic and God was not God. If the laws of logic always existed, then they have no need for God to make them.

The next response was that the laws of logic are somehow identical with God. I replied, if you want to define God as the laws of logic... fine, that's a God I can accept. Still, I don't see that this God has anything to do with the Bible... especially since the Bible begins with a contradictory statement.

After that, he simply resorted to ad hominem.

I wanted to share this on the discussion page before including this response on the main page.