The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:
1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists
It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.
Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.
Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:
god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists
Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).
Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.
1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists
It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.
Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.
Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:
god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists
Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).
Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.
Last edited: