Transcendental argument

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 7: Line 7:
 
<HR />
 
<HR />
  
So what?  Many non-theists when they are backed against the wall will admit that they know nothing with 100% certainty.
+
So what?  Many non-theists 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, "some explanation" this does not make the claim true.  Absolute certainty is in general meaningless as by definition one would have to be omniscient to acquire it.  Atheists are not the ones making the absolute truth claim that something exists whereas theists do make that claim (eg God must exist). 
 +
 
 +
Examples of things that some may call absolute certain is the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow.  To be truly absolute certain, you would have to know the future to know that it indeed will rise.  However that is in general useless.  Its much more accurate to say that we have evidence that for quite some time now the sun has risen in the morning, so we can be reasonably certain that it will do so again tomorrow.
  
 
Some claim that TAG employs [[Circular reasoning]].  However, there are counter-counter-arguments to this.
 
Some claim that TAG employs [[Circular reasoning]].  However, there are counter-counter-arguments to this.

Revision as of 11:45, 3 October 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. Humans generally will prefer some explanation rather than no explanation. However, "some explanation" this does not make the claim true. Absolute certainty is in general meaningless as by definition one would have to be omniscient to acquire it. Atheists are not the ones making the absolute truth claim that something exists whereas theists do make that claim (eg God must exist).

Examples of things that some may call absolute certain is the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow. To be truly absolute certain, you would have to know the future to know that it indeed will rise. However that is in general useless. Its much more accurate to say that we have evidence that for quite some time now the sun has risen in the morning, so we can be reasonably certain that it will do so again tomorrow.

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