Home > Apologetics, Atheism > Strong Atheism: Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God

Strong Atheism: Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God

November 18, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

This argument was found n the article Introduction to Materialist Apologetics. The actual Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God, or TANG is found here. The argument refutes some idea called the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God or TAG. I’ve never heard of TAG before this article, so I guess I’m claiming not it. But I will refute TANG and some mentions of the TAG argument will come up. TANG says that logic, science, and morality disprove God.

So let’s get into logic. TANG states that if logic were dependent on God then he could manipulate logic, and do the illogical, or unnecessary. Logic is necessary, so God cannot exist. I disagree. I do not believe that logic was devised by God. logical thinking is a way of systematically breaking down what we perceive to find if it holds any weight as truth. logic is not gravity, it is not a marble. It isn’t even an solid idea within itself, but rather a way of testing ideas. God is the standard of truth, from a theist’s perspective, that does not make logic bend to the “arbitrary will of god”.

Science, the uniformity of nature. TANG says that science would not be uniform if it was dependent on God. God would literally have to make every reaction for every action, thus making it all subject to God’s will, subjective, and unpredictable. Which then proves God false as well since science is predictable. Martin of TANG also mentions miracles of violation of the uniformity of nature, which also disproves God. I’m going to refer you to my Blog on the necessity of naturalism. Check out the last paragraph, and fill in the gaps to apply it to this situation. Also, if God is all that he claimed to be from his inspired word, as we Christians like to call it, then is it so hard to imagine that he’s so wonderfully powerful that he created the universe to be self sustaining? Imagine a self sustaining universe with an all-relational creator and sustainer. Moreover, based on what I wrote in my other blog, I would say that miracles are more real, and the reality we live in is less real. So that when we observe or read about a miracle that’s a touch of reality, of truth, in our false world. Take it how you will, it is more an idea to ponder than a solid argument.

Morality. This is my favorite of the three, because I get to make it an Ontological argument. Again, TANG states that there is no objective moral code according to TAG, since morality is subjected to God’s “arbitrary will”. First I have an appeal to find where they’re sourcing God’s will as arbitrary, or if that was just made up to fit the argument. Because if we could find that God’s will is not arbitrary, but purposeful and consistent, then the TANG falls apart, and TAG fits pretty well. But is God’s will arbitrary or not? Well I want to refer you back to my blog on the Argument from Non-Cognitivism. We are assigned secondary attributes like love, kindness, servanthood, and so on. But God’s primary attributes are those things. We are who we are, and can obtain love as a characteristic, but God is love. Morality is not defined by God, God is the definition for morality. See, so God cannot violate this morality, it is not up to His arbitrary will.

Tell me, did I miss anything?

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: