Response to TBS on the TAG Argument Pt. 2 of 2

[ttcmp0]

He attacked TAG and your arguments for it because they were faulty reasoning.

If I attack a creationist for his claims of the creation of things, I don't have to prove why and how the big bang occurred. I can simply point out the failings in his arguments (as with W.L.Craigs Kalam Cosmological argument per se).

[420morozco]

Glorifying (your own ridiculous theories), Equipping (your arguments with redundancy and fallacious statements), and Reaching (is all you do in every argument you make)...pathetic.

[thealchemist1111]

2.42 is the reason TAG works for Christian apologists, not for Christian evangelists.

[lojician]

This guys like a troll. He uses a theory called the Transcendental argument FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Yet he claims he has no responsibility to prove god even though he says that atheist's have to account for "their" laws of absolute logic BECAUSE he's required to account for god. He then turn's around and refuses to account for god. Not only that but he's arguing that TBS's laws of logic don't fit his definition because atheists have to believe in absolute logic the way he defines.needmorespace

[WorthlessSix]

God dammit you do this every video, I swear. Someone disagrees with you. "Well, you OBVIOUSLY didn't even understand what I was trying to say. Apparently it went right over your little heathen brain, but I'll still take the time out of my busy schedule, following Christ and all, to personally insult you then take on a mocking tone and pretend you talk like a five-year-old."

Dude, you are so pro.

[PrinceofPreachers]

Matt slick is totally representing the transcendental argument wrong, if you want to hear the real transcendental argument, listen to a guy named Greg Bahnsen...

[sieg5]

2:42 you do realize that you basically said that god is real coz the christian world view said that it is, right?

[bassbole]

so you account for god's consciousness by saying its a apart of god's eternal existence huh? Do you mind accounting for that?

This is the same WLC craig repulsive style of argumentation. Say something without any substance, but throw in an insult to your opponents intellect at the end so people will think you are smarter than the other guy. So lame.



[bkpalumbo]

his string of logic baffles me, he's talking in circles in high and mighty tone that irritates me. he also hasn't even tried to account for god's nature or even his existence. Just stick to preaching dude, leave philosophy to better people

[ThieleM]

Baffle them with BS eh Matt?

[jerf241]

wow matt you are really good at dodging questions and holding double standards, congrats on flexing your deception muscle you've obviously been working it out alot.

[nospacesallowed]

You make a series of arguments here that are troubling. You said at the beginning that if you invalidate one you validate the other point of view. When challenged on your point of view you say that it is irrelevant what your point of view says.... Which is not true because if TBS can invalidate your point of view then by your logic it validates his.

[symsee]

Laws of absolutes are not things.

Understand that.

[ArcaneLogic]

As an atheist, I quite like the explanation you give at 4:27 "logical absolutes are foundational and transcendent truth statements upon which logical processes are built". Works for me!

If they are themselves transcendent, they are not reliant on some other transcendent being. Especially since God's existence is just as dependant upon them as anything non-transcendent. God can't make A=not A, or cloud=rock, nor can God also be "not God". He can't be the author of something he is contingent upon.

[mfentruck]

Where did god get his logical absolutes?

[noodles321321]

Argh...I hate debates in this format. It discussions that get a complex as this, it's virtually impossible to determine when somebody has made a crushing rebuttal of the other persons argument. This would be so much better if they were debating live...I want to here Slick stutter as his argument is brutally demolished by TBS....

[Esandero]

Very good job Mr.Slick,thank you!

[WayOfTheBastard]

You lost this discussion big time sir. If you really want to save TAG debate TBS in person and on camera. Or do it by phone like you did with Matt at the AA. Otherwise you have admitted defeat.

[DoctorPlausible]

The monkey mind goes round and round itself.

Yes, MS, ultimate truth is unknowable by humans. Get over it.

[GnosticAgnostic]

I don't understand how postulating a God helps provide an explanation for logical absolutes.

How does God make them?

[pahlrosp]

This "response" is full of out of context citation and non-explained assumptions... annoying.

[MDUARTE821]

yeah dawkins calls it 'quote mining'

[bighaus54]

You have yet to give a reason why logic in anyway can prove whether god does or does not exist.

[lovasip]

Some tenets of Christian theology in fact go straight against the laws of logic. Like 1=3.

Or bearing a child, yet remain virgin. Being all-good, but working trough mysterious ways also.

Not to mention the good old omnipotent-free will debate.

Religions embrace paradoxons. By the way how can you account for existence of paradoxons that stem from using these so perfect laws of logic?

[DementedToast]

Wow, you win.

[djchozen91]

@lovasip Matt has dealt with this argument here on his website:

[AppliedApologetics]

@lovasip - (1) 1 God = 3 Persons is not a violation of the Law of NC because it is in a different sense. (2) What law of logic does a virgin bearing a child violate? (3) Ominscience v. Free Will is not an issue because God's foreknowledge does not make a thing come about by necessity. Hence, God can decree that man does something freely and it does not violate the Law of NC because its a different sense.

[lovasip]

@AppliedApologetics

1. Or in a different nonsense. What is the sound of one hand clapping?

2. She might have been a virgin before the conception and birth in some sense. But surely not after. Yet Catholic dogma tells otherwise, she was a virgin till ascension to Heaven.

3. I am free to choose, but you already know what I will choose. You can explain away the first two, but this? No way.

[AppliedApologetics]

@lovasip - Number 3 is easy because foreknowledge does not equal necessity.

p1: Necessarily (if God foreknows X, then X will occur).

p2: God foreknows X.

C: Therefore, necessarily (X will occur).

This (the above) is not the Christian position. “C” is not a truth of logic.

[lovasip]

@AppliedApologetics If you think so, fine. What I put forward is not an argument against the Transcendental argument, just an observation how the TAG in general and the particular religious dogmas do not fit together.

TAG fails on more basic levels, like every "First Mover" type argument.

[wtblessing]

"The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Argument!"

"Personal Identification Number Number!"

[wtblessing]

:30 isn't that sort of exactly what "TBS" is saying? I totally agree with you. truth is not knowable. Are you suggesting that the human mind can comprehend absolute truths? Are you saying that absolute truths exist? I would call such a thing a leap of faith. But I guess if none of us jump....

[Hooya2]

Very disappointing. It's as if TBS's arguments flew right over your head.

No, atheists can't account for why nature behaves in a certain way--the way we describe through laws of logic. However, NEITHER CAN YOU. Simply saying it's part of God's nature isn't accounting for anything UNLESS YOU CAN ACCOUNT FOR GOD'S NATURE.

2:43 I lolled. So then, you believe that simply saying 'it's an attribute of something that exists' is sufficient accounting?

[Follower172]

@Hooya2 ... it is simple. There are two worldviews. One with God, one without. They both presuppose their point of view. Therefore, the Christian will by nature assume God's existence. Both sides presuppose their point of view. The difference is that the Christian side accounts for everything. The opposition does not.

[Hooya2]

@Follower172 Follower172, I don't presuppose my atheism; I've reached it as a conclusion by examining reality. I don't think most theists presuppose God's existence either; rather, they defend it as a logical inference from things like the Bible and science (even if their reasoning is poor).

I do presuppose the existence of the laws of logic, and that's something Christians and atheists share... But the Christian side doesn't account for laws of logic, OR for God.

[meeene4]

@Hooya2 And why do you think christians do not account for god?

[Hooya2]

@meeene4 Isn't it obvious? To account for something, you have to explain what caused that thing to exist. Since Christians claim God doesn't have a cause, by definition he can't be accounted for. If I asked you why God exists rather than not existing, you wouldn't have--indeed, you couldn't have--a coherent answer.

I can't explain why nature follows laws of logic, but you can't explain why nature obeys God, or why God is onmibenevolent. All you can say is, 'Because it just is'.

[meeene4]

@Hooya2

First of all god has always been, he was not caused by anything, and i do not have to say he was

because that is all we know.

And i can say more than that, God shows benevolence in Christians lives everyday, he is not going to

show himself and help do everything, God is because he is a loving father, but his ways are only what

Christians understand.

[Hooya2]

@meeene4 Well meeene, you don't say it outright but it seems as though you've tacitly admitted the point; you can't account for God, and you don't feel you need to. Will you stop wasting time and just admit that being unable to account for some things is not a fatal flaw in a worldview? Then we can all agree that TAG is a useless argument.

And who cares if you think God shows benevolence in your life? That's got nothing to do with this argument.

[meeene4]

@Hooya2 Yes, and can you think of a logical explanation why nature acts that way?

[niggaids]

@Hooya2 Well then don't present us with a tautology. If you believe that laws of logic came after nature then you believe that once something came from nothing (start of the universe) it could be plausible, given your worldview of logic and how it came about, that something (the item that popped into existence), could be both itself, not itself, and within a middle state. Unless of course you wanna state that logic came first and walk right back into our parlor.

[Hooya2]

@niggaids So if I believe that logic is eternal that somehow makes me a theist? You wish.

The laws of logic are things that we can't imagine being false. Asking someone to explain their cause is like asking someone to find the edge to a sphere: it's an incoherent demand. The best answer seems to be, "They are eternal and causeless." But this doesn't justify lumping them together with an alleged eternal, causeless intelligence, and doing so most certainly doesn't explain where they're from.

[Danmill23]

Which do you have more faith in, TAG or god?

Is TAG a type of savior, different than but similar to Christ?

There is a youtuber named Todd Allen Gates. Do you envy him at all?

If god did not exist would you worship TAG instead?

Do you find it difficult to understand what other people are saying?

How confident are you in your own ability to make a rational tomato?