TAG argument, fails

[Hollie]

We shall. Before going any further however let us make sure we are going in the same direction. That way we can avoid your other favorite arguing technique, 'change the nature of the discussion every three replies to avoid getting pinned to something you said'. We are determining whether God can be proved using the TAG argument, true?

She already addressed this, she said that it begs the question - which it does.

Exactly what question does it beg? I asked a question and you said I was trolling.

You are trolling. Do you think no one sees it?

I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he said we got off on the wrong foot, but now he's trolling again.........ugh

You know, GT, I saw your thread and I say to myself, "Ah, here is someone who might actually be interested in learning about God." So I give it a try. Nope. So I back up and give it another go. Nope. You say that you do not know know about God and no one does. But I do and I can give you understanding too if you actually wanted it. Apparently you would much rather play with your new girlfriend, Miss self-righteous, Jezebel-wanta-be. Seeing how she saved you from a near miss with understanding she might be a lot more Jezebel than she even knows. I will get back to making sport of Hollie when I get the free time again. As for you my offer stands any time you care to take me up on it. Sincerely, RV.

Jezebel? I guess pointing out you were spamming the thread got your righteous indignation off the scale.


"I will get back to making sport of Hollie when I get the free time again"

That sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving... ah well, "Guns or Knives, Butch"

 

[turzovka]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

 

[RandomVariable]

Cuz you're an internet troll, a stranger, and trust is earned not given away.

Fair enough. It is a start.

Do you fear God?, in any sense. If so, why?

 

[Hollie]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

EEEEEYUP!

The good old, it's too complicated to have happened by chance™, argument.

 

[G.T.]

"Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links."
(wasnt a link, was an imbedded youtube video)

"God does exist. You can take my word for it."
(cuz normal people trust anonymous internet userhandles)

When I said "oh jesus," which is obviously a common expression similar to "good grief," I got:

"No, you see he is made up. Creating Jesus created one of the greatest, the greatest, stumbling blocks to finding God."








You were a distasteful troll from the very moment you stepped foot in my thread, and until you apologize and act like a grown up? I'm gunna act like an ass hole to you in order to meet your craving, as you obviously desired. Mmmkay?

 

[G.T.]

Cuz you're an internet troll, a stranger, and trust is earned not given away.

Fair enough. It is a start.

Do you fear God?, in any sense. If so, why?

It is irrational to fear that which is not proven to exist.

No, I do not fear god.

 

[RandomVariable]

She already addressed this, she said that it begs the question - which it does.

Exactly what question does it beg? I asked a question and you said I was trolling.

You are trolling. Do you think no one sees it?

I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he said we got off on the wrong foot, but now he's trolling again.........ugh

You know, GT, I saw your thread and I say to myself, "Ah, here is someone who might actually be interested in learning about God." So I give it a try. Nope. So I back up and give it another go. Nope. You say that you do not know know about God and no one does. But I do and I can give you understanding too if you actually wanted it. Apparently you would much rather play with your new girlfriend, Miss self-righteous, Jezebel-wanta-be. Seeing how she saved you from a near miss with understanding she might be a lot more Jezebel than she even knows. I will get back to making sport of Hollie when I get the free time again. As for you my offer stands any time you care to take me up on it. Sincerely, RV.

Jezebel? I guess pointing out you were spamming the thread got your righteous indignation off the scale.


"I will get back to making sport of Hollie when I get the free time again"

That sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving... ah well, "Guns or Knives, Butch"

Sorry, no free time yet. Maybe after I do the LORD's work. You can go ahead and do yours until then.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

This thread is not about my search for god.

It's about the TAG being an irrational form of argument.

 

[RandomVariable]

Cuz you're an internet troll, a stranger, and trust is earned not given away.

Fair enough. It is a start.

Do you fear God?, in any sense. If so, why?

It is irrational to fear that which is not proven to exist.

No, I do not fear god.

I find it hard to believe you are agnostic and have absolutely no fear of God. If you are not going to be honest this is a waste of time. There is a reason 'do not lie' is one of the ten commandments, it is about yourself, not others.

 

[G.T.]

Its not a lie simply because your mind can't understand it, sorry dude. Fuck I look like caring what a troll thinks anyhow.

 

[turzovka]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

EEEEEYUP!

The good old, it's too complicated to have happened by chance™, argument.

Sorry, it is simply too complicated for you.

And the fact that is your only comeback supports that suspicion.

 

[RandomVariable]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

 

[turzovka]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

This thread is not about my search for god.

It's about the TAG being an irrational form of argument.

Yeah, sure. It's all about threads, and not about arriving at greater conclusions.

 

[RandomVariable]

Its not a lie simply because your mind can't understand it, sorry dude. Fuck I look like caring what a troll thinks anyhow.

Do you care what God thinks?

 

[G.T.]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

This thread is not about my search for god.

It's about the TAG being an irrational form of argument.

Yeah, sure. It's all about threads, and not about arriving at greater conclusions.

Well if you're here to just be a disagreeable contrarian - go for it - but it doesn't raise my eyebrows sorry.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

EEEEEYUP!

The good old, it's too complicated to have happened by chance™, argument.

Sorry, it is simply too complicated for you.

And the fact that is your only comeback supports that suspicion.

Sorry, but the nonsense you posted was boilerplate Christian fundie apologetics.

 

[G.T.]

Its not a lie simply because your mind can't understand it, sorry dude. Fuck I look like caring what a troll thinks anyhow.

Do you care what God thinks?

I don't have a conclusion if god even exists.

Do you care what a gigantic squirrel with man arms and horse legs, on steroids and in the WWE, thinks?

Same applies.

 

[turzovka]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

Note: Perhaps I misunderstood what you were first saying to me? If so, my apologies.

 

[turzovka]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

EEEEEYUP!

The good old, it's too complicated to have happened by chance™, argument.

Sorry, it is simply too complicated for you.

And the fact that is your only comeback supports that suspicion.

Sorry, but the nonsense you posted was boilerplate Christian fundie apologetics.

Hollie, I believe your reputation precedes you. Your lack of a cogent rebuttal does your side no good.

 

[turzovka]

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.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

This thread is not about my search for god.

It's about the TAG being an irrational form of argument.

Yeah, sure. It's all about threads, and not about arriving at greater conclusions.

Well if you're here to just be a disagreeable contrarian - go for it - but it doesn't raise my eyebrows sorry.

Not a problem. But I think your few words says a lot (to me).