Tic Tac Toe pwns TAG

My favorite argument! The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God!


It's invalid, but I appreciate your efforts!



Zack's original TAG video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAO9o3GNrc

Lord Logic video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4-oq6u56rs

Zack's response...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azf41MGRLFg

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• zkueker88
• urbanelf
• theoreticalbullshit
• presuppositionalism
• crazy
• arguments
• transcendental
• presuppositionalist

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf Well you didn't try to prove logic so perhaps my words were poorly chosen but you certainly invoke the use of logic in order to qualify logic when you say its either self-evident or not.

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf Whether its self-evident.

[urbanelf]

@gary83uk "As you said, you can't use logic to prove logic since its circular but you do it several times even after making that statement."

I have not once used logic to prove logic. If you disagree, please show me where.

[urbanelf]

@gary83uk I'm not giving you a lesson. I'm trying to clarify what you think I mean when I say "foundationally justified." If I don't know why you think I mean then I don't know how to respond.

Again, what do you think I mean when I say "foundationally justified"?

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf Epistemology is also contingent on logic so you are still begging the question even if we focus on your use of foundationalism and not the fact you used the law of non contradiction.

As you said, you can't use logic to prove logic since its circular but you do it several times even after making that statement.

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf I don't need a lesson in foundationalism thank you but even if I did it still wouldn't matter - you used the law of non contradiction and the fact you were citing foundational logic at the time is beside the point.

You could have said "logic is either red or it isn't" and you would have made the same mistake.

[urbanelf]

@gary83uk What do you think I mean when I say "foundationally justified"?

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf "Logic is either foundationally justified or not at all."

This just isn't coherent - you can't use logical laws (in this case the law of non contradiction) to make conclusions on the validity of logic.

If you don't presuppose the law of non contradiction how can you claim that logic is either foundationally justified or not - it could also be both or neither.

[urbanelf]

@jklarson66 Hmm... I haven't though about this one in a while.

If I said that there are no sufficient reasons for believing logic, I mean 'sufficient' in the technical sense of "X therefore I should believe there is logic."

Any premise "X therefore logic" would itself presuppose logic and would be circular.

Logic is either foundationally justified or not at all. If self-evident is a kind of foundational justification then you and I are probably in some kind of agreement.

[jklarson66]

Can't give sufficient evidence for logic? Please, don't fall into this trap. Nothing could be more self evident than the laws of identity and non-contradiction which all other precepts are based on. Self evident is self evident. Anyone who thinks this is circular reasoning should be dragged into the street and beaten with tire irons until they admit that to be beaten is fundamentally and self evidently different than not being beaten. These assholes would say 2+2=5 if the Bible said so.