Does God Exist? Transcendental Argument for God - A Critique

	Duration: 03:24 minutes Upload Time: 07-05-06 01:04:26 User: Diacorda :::: Favorites
Description: This addresses the underlying issues involved in Transcendental Arguments for the Abrahamic god.
Comments
TheFallibleFiend ::: Favorites A little. My perception is that it's a long string of arguments from ignorance. We don't know, therefore God. Alternatively it is a string of assertions, "Atheism CAN'T account for X, therefore God." 07-08-13 17:28:30 _____________________________________________________
TheFallibleFiend ::: Favorites I follow that if a God exists, he is outside the purview of science. The point isn't about God, per se, but about science and scientific laws. The fact that tax laws do not apply to turnips is b/c we humans write the tax laws - they are utterly arbitrary. We could make tax laws applies to turnips, but it wouldn't make sense to us. But physical laws are a different thing. 07-08-13 17:31:23 _____________________________________________________
TheFallibleFiend ::: Favorites We take them (physical laws) to be inherent parts of the universe, not suggestions. You don't get punished for exceeding SOL - you presumably can't do it to begin with. 07-08-13 17:31:53 _____________________________________________________
cacokilla ::: Favorites Every illustration breaks down under long scrutiny. :) I am not making arguments for taxing turnips here just illustrating a category error. 07-08-13 20:19:40 _____________________________________________________
cacokilla ::: Favorites It would be illogical to try to apply human laws to turnips. It is illogical to try to detect God with Laws of Science. If God violoates one of these Laws it is of no consequence to how we view the Laws as we are not God we can never violate the laws. God can, finite changing beings cannot. That is consistent. If God does it would not be the same as if we did. 07-08-13 20:19:41 _____________________________________________________
cacokilla ::: Favorites Watch the Matt Slick version. Not too long , and pretty clear in presentation. Otherwise you may assert claims based on posits not made in the argument. 07-08-13 20:19:45 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
TheFallibleFiend ::: Favorites I have never suggested that we can detect God with the laws of science. This is not an 'admission' on my part - rather it is something that I have always maintained (well, in the last 25 years so anyway). If there are any violations to the law, the law is not a law. It is a suggestion. Moreover, if there were a violation of the law, we still could not detect god in it. 07-08-13 20:33:58 _____________________________________________________
cacokilla ::: Favorites Ok, your making an unreasonable requirement on the Law. ie. If Turnips are excluded from taxation then it is not a law it is a suggestion. Turnips are not entities to be taxed. God is not an entity bound by Laws of Nature, if God violates those laws it has no bearing to the validity of those laws for those who are bound by them. Everything else is still reasonably expected to follow those laws. I'm not sure how you keep missing this point. 07-08-14 00:31:13 _____________________________________________________
TheFallibleFiend ::: Favorites "I'm not sure how you keep missing this point." I'm a very slow guy. 07-08-14 08:28:02 _____________________________________________________
Parmenius ::: Favorites Diacorda - But if this limited 'god' can maintain order in nature, it must be somehow above nature. Why then could it not change the order in nature and produce miracles? It seems to me that just because induction points to an orderer of nature, it doesn't follow that this orderer is bound by the order it creates. 07-08-26 15:55:17 _____________________________________________________