TAG argument, fails

[turzovka]

When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?

I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.

I am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?

I will try something later, if it interests you. The problem is what I wrote requires a lot of reading to emphasize my case fairly. And no one around here reads anything that long, they will get bored. But my case is all about miracles, all kinds of miracles. They all point to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad or the Hindu gods. It is the preponderance of them that makes their veracity all the more convincing.

And over the years I post one in great detail, then another months later, and so on. They are discounted with either flimsy suggested alternatives or by the skeptic thinking if he can disprove this one to his way of thinking then that proves God is false. No, he has to disprove a hundred different events, miracles, historical facts, etc. And then we are back to someone having to read a volume of information for us to make our case more soundly.

The basic problem with this is that if God actually wanted us to be sure on this question it would be extremely easy to make it so. If you have to write long dissertations to make your point, the God clearly has no such desire. Perhaps it is better to stop wondering and just do the best we can.

I can't answer that one.

I suppose that is why for the vast majority it remains more a matter of faith. Not that they do not still have good reasons for their faith.

The only reason needed for faith is to be true to how you feel. I have tremendous respect for faith and belief and I tend to be suspicious of anyone who claims their faith or belief is somehow more than that. In the absence of evidence, all you can do is go with your gut. It may take you somewhere and me somewhere else, but it all ultimately leads to the same destination. I'm sure we will differ on what that destination might be, but that is ok as well.

Yes, sure. That does not sound all bad to me. I am just doing what I think I should be doing with others in sharing, not coercing.

But God is merciful to the extreme. He will not hold a poor Muslim mother in contempt for not knowing Jesus, not at all. He judges everyone who they are where they are and what they were given. That also goes for those who cannot believe no matter how sincerely they try.

 

[PratchettFan]

Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.

Do you have objective evidence?

When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?

I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.

I am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?

I will try something later, if it interests you. The problem is what I wrote requires a lot of reading to emphasize my case fairly. And no one around here reads anything that long, they will get bored. But my case is all about miracles, all kinds of miracles. They all point to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad or the Hindu gods. It is the preponderance of them that makes their veracity all the more convincing.

And over the years I post one in great detail, then another months later, and so on. They are discounted with either flimsy suggested alternatives or by the skeptic thinking if he can disprove this one to his way of thinking then that proves God is false. No, he has to disprove a hundred different events, miracles, historical facts, etc. And then we are back to someone having to read a volume of information for us to make our case more soundly.

You are mixing up the belief in the existence of and an understanding of. I get my understanding from the Old Testament. Do you have a book or is your understanding from personal experience? or from a church

Well it seems far more the problem with understanding is a refusal to first believe. Most want proof before they start listening to the message.

My understanding comes primarily from Catholic dogma and doctrine and the words of the great saints whose lives and miracles are evidence for the veracity of their words.

Which brings us back to the basic point the OP was making. In order to reach the conclusion of the TAG you must first believe. You essentially have to accept the conclusion has already been proven before the proof even begins. Thus, it fails.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, this thread was not meant to argue for or against god the umpteenth time, it was meant to point out that those using the TAG argument are being irrational. Its not a good argument.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?

I will try something later, if it interests you. The problem is what I wrote requires a lot of reading to emphasize my case fairly. And no one around here reads anything that long, they will get bored. But my case is all about miracles, all kinds of miracles. They all point to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad or the Hindu gods. It is the preponderance of them that makes their veracity all the more convincing.

And over the years I post one in great detail, then another months later, and so on. They are discounted with either flimsy suggested alternatives or by the skeptic thinking if he can disprove this one to his way of thinking then that proves God is false. No, he has to disprove a hundred different events, miracles, historical facts, etc. And then we are back to someone having to read a volume of information for us to make our case more soundly.

The basic problem with this is that if God actually wanted us to be sure on this question it would be extremely easy to make it so. If you have to write long dissertations to make your point, the God clearly has no such desire. Perhaps it is better to stop wondering and just do the best we can.

I can't answer that one.

I suppose that is why for the vast majority it remains more a matter of faith. Not that they do not still have good reasons for their faith.

The only reason needed for faith is to be true to how you feel. I have tremendous respect for faith and belief and I tend to be suspicious of anyone who claims their faith or belief is somehow more than that. In the absence of evidence, all you can do is go with your gut. It may take you somewhere and me somewhere else, but it all ultimately leads to the same destination. I'm sure we will differ on what that destination might be, but that is ok as well.

Yes, sure. That does not sound all bad to me. I am just doing what I think I should be doing with others in sharing, not coercing.

But God is merciful to the extreme. He will not hold a poor Muslim mother in contempt for not knowing Jesus, not at all. He judges everyone who they are where they are and what they were given. That also goes for those who cannot believe no matter how sincerely they try.

I believe Jesus would agree with you. Of course, most of what he taught was taught by Siddhartha several centuries before and he certainly would agree. Personally, I don't think there is a any judgment or need for mercy. You are either ready or you are not. If not, you just continue on until you are. We all arrive eventually. It is inevitable.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, this thread was not meant to argue for or against god the umpteenth time, it was meant to point out that those using the TAG argument are being irrational. Its not a good argument.

Yes, it got side tracked. I was part of that. My apologies.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, this thread was not meant to argue for or against god the umpteenth time, it was meant to point out that those using the TAG argument are being irrational. Its not a good argument.

Yes, it got side tracked. I was part of that. My apologies.

no big deal man, its JUST a messageboard

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

These short stupid arguements remind me of my thought-processes while on acid. "My gosh! The specks on salt on this Cheeze-It are huuuuge!"

 

[G.T.]

Exactly, you'd have to BE on acid to think they're rational.

 

[PratchettFan]

Exactly, you'd have to BE on acid to think they're rational.

I think rational isn't all it's cracked up to be. Nothing at all wrong with being irrational. But if one is going to claim their position is rational, then they need to be rational.

 

[G.T.]

Can't really say nothing 'at all' wrong with it. Think about not brushing your teeth ever and dying an early death due to the disease it creates when you could JUST have brushed your teeth.

How about leaving a one year old crawling on a highway?

Nothing 'at all' wrong with being irrational?

 

[PratchettFan]

Can't really say nothing 'at all' wrong with it. Think about not brushing your teeth ever and dying an early death due to the disease it creates when you could JUST have brushed your teeth.

How about leaving a one year old crawling on a highway?

Nothing 'at all' wrong with being irrational?

Don't confuse irrational with stupid. They are not the same thing. My two great loves are riding motorcycles and diving deep. A 200' dive is run of the mill for me. I'll spend a lot of money to do 300' dives. Both are extremely dangerous hobbies. Is that rational? Not even a little bit, but that doesn't make me stupid.

 

[G.T.]

Nah..but irrational and stupid in most cases go hand in hand.

 

[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.

TAG = "i can prove god if i already accept god exists before i type the proof!"

derp derp derp derp