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

Matt Slick of www.carm.org responds to Theoretical BS's criticisms of the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheism
• theism
• does
• god
• exist
• transcendental
• argument
• matt
• slick
• carm
• theoretical
• bull
• shit
• bs
• experience

[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?

[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?

[Jesus53993]

God bless

[Zentz29]

If all minds in the universe ceased to exist right now, including gods (assuming there is one), a rock would not be able to be something else. There wouldn't be a mind to conceptualize the word "rock", but the rock would still the thing that used to be called a rock & could not be something else.

[TKStoddart]

I have trouble following this argument, because when he says things like "accounting for eternal existence" I do not know what he is talking about.

[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...

[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.