| | The Transcendental Argument [TAG]
Below I am trying to deal with an argument for God's existence that is - according to my reading - a fairly new argument. Michael Martin deals with it in a few places on the Secular Web. I have produced a short article below in the hopes that some who understand objectivism far more than I can examine where I have made errors in my presentation of axioms etc.
Thanks.
TAG basically seeks to undermine the atheistic position by stripping him of the means by which existence is identified – namely through the means of logic. TAG attempts to force the atheist into conceding that God exists by saying that the laws of logic are immaterial and that by using them the atheist actually proves God's existence. The theist will contend that only his God is the one that fits the bill of logic and that by using logic he is stealing his world view or must borrow from his religion in order to produce arguments contrary to the religion.
But what is TAG really? TAG is an attempt to re-establish consciousness as an axiom. In objectivist philosophy there are three main axioms – existence, identity and consciousness. TAG seems to claim that existence has identity and that identity is logic. Objectivist philosophy states that existence is identity. It does not seek to prove existence – to do so would entail a logical fallacy.
I think there are two levels at which this argument seeks to establish itself. To say that existence has identity is to say that existence and logic are one and the same. In a sense I don't think there could be any real argument between the atheist or theist – perhaps someone can show me where I am wrong here. But I think that TAG seeks to place logic beyond the reach of existence making it an entity which exists above existence. Here, then, is where I believe TAG makes an arbitrary assertion. The theist producing TAG as an argument has taken materiality and created an immaterial entity – the theist must provide evidence that this assertion is valid.
If logic is immaterial and transcends existence, then how does the theist know the laws of logic? Isn't logic then just another name for God or one of his attributes – hence we are playing the definition game. Further, by saying that God is logical is really just another form of negative theology – to say that God is logical is to say that God is not illogical. I base this on the scripture that says an ax head floated which means that at times God will transcend the laws of logic which must mean that there are times when God's logic is the reverse of logic. It would seem that the laws of logic are just another secondary attribute of an undefinable deity. To me this seems to undermine the theists position.
But I think TAG seeks to do something even more fundamental – it seeks to shut the atheist up completely by not allowing him to argue at all. Anything I have said above can be dismissed immediately by the TAG touting theist because I have undermined my own argument by utilizing his theology, religion, God, etc.
To me it seems that the theist must produce some evidence that logic must transcend existence – making existence subordinate to logic. Until the theist does this TAG must fail – the burden of proof is on the theist.
|
|
