The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

Matt Slick of http://carm.org argues for the existence of God using the Transcendental Argument.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheism
• theism
• lee
• strobel
• ravi
• zacharias
• debate
• proof
• existence
• of
• god
• www.carm.org
• christian
• apologetics
• matt
• slick

[snellim]

if the argument does not begin with assuming the existence of the Christian God, then why jump to the conclusion that the "author" of the Laws of Logic is the Christian god. "We call this author..." Oprah. Who would have guessed?

[papermermaid]

so what you are saying is that you have no proof of god....k

[JACOESHMT]

@JACOESHMT In no way is it contrary.

[MrEdo1493]

@JACOESHMT you didn't consider the fact that it could be the contrary.

[JACOESHMT]

@MrEdo1493 You are simply not intelligent enough to understand what he is saying.

[TheMonk72]

Despite many assertions to the contrary there is a false dichotomy inherent in this argument. Slick insists that non-conceptual means physical, which is fallacious. There are other classes that exist, regardless of whether or not Slick accepts this.

For example, is Gravity a concept? No. Is it Physical? No. It is a Physical Law, or perhaps something else.

Plainly: Non-conceptual does not equal physical. Non-physical does not equal conceptual.

TAG over.

[MrEdo1493]

I just saw the first five minutes of this video and I saw how much ignorance there is in the world. God doesn't exist and it is something that shouldn't sound strange to you.

If you want to talk about logic, it is better if you study the great works of greek philosophers who thoughts that GODS were just the projection of the useful. We need them, without them we won't be able to live. Instead of saying stupid things, I prefer to study the great works of Physics in order to understand this world

[urcorrect]

Aren't the laws of logic dependent upon space/time?

identity: a IS a

non-contradiction: a cannot BE a and not a at the same TIME and sense

excluded middle: a statement IS true or false

And they're not conceptual in nature; our models of reality are conceptual, but there's a long road ahead before the universe is proven to be so.

[Ematched]

Ugh, that was a waste of 8+ minutes.

[bgiv2010]

@10YNWA10 Agreed. But that's not what I thought you were saying. We can talk about the probability and possibility of things and have a very interesting conversation and we may learn many things from each other.

But once you talk about the certainty of something or try to explain something, even with less than 100% certainty, you must state your premises and if a premise is not known to be true, then you must prove it.