How Objectivism provides the definitive refutation of the Transcendental Argument!

This is an argument that has often caught the interest of individuals like TheoreticalBullsh#t, and tooltime9901. But apparently, they have not been able to decisively refute it. This video, does just that. It provides the ultimate refutation of the Transcendental Argument.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Laws of Logic
• Matt Slick
• Objectivism
• Theologica37

[legendre007]

Interesting. :-)

I'm a student of Objectivism. U might be the 1st Objectivist video-maker on YouTube who makes videos that do not consist mostly of the Objectivist getting directly in front of the camera & giving a monologue.

Perhaps this has been said b4: there is a huge contrast in your video's sounds. In some parts, the sound is soft & I have to put the speaker directly up to my ear to hear. In other parts, the sound blasts really loud, & I have to get the speaker away from my ear.

[bhigr]

I am an atheist, but I don't buy your argument. If you derive the axioms of logic from experience then you are using inductive reasoning. You cannot prove by induction that logic is universally applicable. The reason I don't buy the argument for the existence of god is that it is merely filling a gap. Why are the axioms of logic correct? Answer: We don't know. Does that prove that a divine creator must be the author of these laws? Answer NO.

[crossoldman]

Dhorpatan I still love you even though you were rude to me a couple of months ago. Good video. :)

[Cootabux]

Theo37 & others like him, are notorious 4 misstating our case, and it's not our fault that they're so insecure that resort to name calling & outbursts of anger.

They know they have no case, and that our position has not been refuted. We don't have all the answers but that doesn't default to a ghost-god being the "cause" as they would say.

These kinds of arguments get nowhere. This is why I like to demonstrate how Judaism was constructed from the Canaanite pantheon via the Ugaritic Texts.

[Cootabux]

bhigr

U said; "The reason I don't buy the argument for the existence of god is that it is merely filling a gap. Why are the axioms of logic correct? Answer: We don't know. Does that prove that a divine creator must be the author of these laws? Answer NO."

I agree and this is all that believers do. They have no basis (when we really look at scripture and the origins of their religion), they have no evidence, only proclamations. As you say, they use the gaps to "create" their gods.

[Leviathan20586]

Even if your point is conceded - that Atheism is not a worldview - the argument still stands when modified slightly. While there is no singular "alternative worldview", objectivism is a worldview as is naturalism/materialism. These worldviews include atheism. So fine - forget that anyone using TAG says "atheist worldview" and just insert "objectivist worldview" or "naturalist/materialist worldview".

[maddtappin]

@ogirv101 he already told you!! Will you shut up!

[MrMZaccone]

@ogirv101 The correct answer to the question "Does the universe have a purpose?" is "I don't know." This, like many examples in quantum physics leaves the "excluded middle" in a box with some guy's cat. The transendental argument is a non-starter, get over it.

[MrMZaccone]

Beautifully done, thank you so much.

[ogirv101]

Appears to be false? Buddhists have supernatural beliefs, which is the opposite of the common Atheist. The common Atheist adhered to metaphysical naturalism, and since you're not a Buddhist what does this have anything to do with me arguing your worldview? Most Atheists are Buddhists, and not all Buddhists consider themselves Atheists. Buddhists are more like Pantheists than Atheists. They believe nature is God and they believe in supernatural concepts, Atheists don't.

[ogirv101]

@Dhorpatan:

So you're denying to tell me your worldview? Why, do you feel that it's flawed? So you have the right to attack someone else's worldview, but they're not allowed to even discuss yours? Sounds hypocritical and unintellectual at least.

Also, if your view if Objectivism, why is it objectivism? Why do you believe in absolute truth and that knowledge is subjective and not objective. Why do you even assume our sensory perception is valid, or our a priori knowledge is valid?