Transcendental argument

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (fixed a spelling error)
m
Line 1: Line 1:
The Transcendental Argument (TAG).  From WikiPedia:
+
The Transcendental Argument (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.
+
"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."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument]
  
 
Eg. Knowledge cannot be obtained absolutely unless the source of that knowledge is itself an absolute source (read: being/God).  Ergo, either you sub-consciously believe in an absolute being that upholds and makes absolute the laws of the universe/morality OR you do not and CAN NOT know anything for certain.  
 
Eg. Knowledge cannot be obtained absolutely unless the source of that knowledge is itself an absolute source (read: being/God).  Ergo, either you sub-consciously believe in an absolute being that upholds and makes absolute the laws of the universe/morality OR you do not and CAN NOT know anything for certain.  

Revision as of 21:41, 19 September 2008

The Transcendental Argument (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]

Eg. Knowledge cannot be obtained absolutely unless the source of that knowledge is itself an absolute source (read: being/God). Ergo, either you sub-consciously believe in an absolute being that upholds and makes absolute the laws of the universe/morality OR you do not and CAN NOT know anything for certain.

Counter-Arguments


So what? Many non-theists when they are backed against the wall will admit that they know nothing with 100% certainty.

Some claim that TAG employs Circular reasoning. However, there are counter-counter-arguments to this.

Others claim that TAG is a variation of the Ontological argument.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox