Response to TBS on the TAG Argument Pt. 1 of 2

This is a response to Theoretical BS's attempt to answer the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence that I produced a while back.

I doubt I'll respond past this video since point -counterpoint can go on ad nauseum.

Nevertheless, here is a brief examination of the main problems with Theoretical Bull's response. Also, please note that from here on I will refer to him as TBS and the

Transcendental Argument for God's Existence as TAG. In brief, the TAG argument states that when there are only two possibilities to account for something and one of them is negated, by default, the other is vindicated.

The two possibilities under examination are God exists and no God exists.

There aren't any other possibilities. Now, logic is a process of the mind and logic is based on the laws of logic, such as the law of identity, the law of non -contradiction, and the law of excluded middle.

These laws are absolute, transcendent, and conceptual by nature. Now, we must ask if either or both of the two worldviews in question can rationally provide the necessary conditions to account for logical absolutes, not just logical processes, not just logical thinking, but logical absolutes from which logical processes are derived.

TAG examines the atheistic arguments to account for the logical absolutes and demonstrates how they are insufficient.

Their insufficiency means that theism is validated since it is logically impossible to negate both of the only two possibilities that can account for logical absolutes.

After all, if one is negated, the other is automatically validated. But the argument does not stop there, though it is justified in doing so.

It further postulates that absolute, transcendent, conceptual truths require an absolute, transcendent mind.

That mind is God. About a minute and a half into his video, TBS says that logic describes things and shows how things work.

Okay, but that does not deal with the necessary preconditions for the existence of logical absolutes, which is what the

TAG argument is about. At about two minutes in, TBS says that the universe behaves the way it behaves.

Well, that's obvious. But stating the obvious does not refute TAG any more than saying logic describes things and shows how things work.

The argument is about providing rational explanations to account for logical absolutes such as the law of identity, the law of non -contradiction, and the law of excluded middle.

TBS needs to address the argument and not offer irrelevant comments. He goes on to say, at about two minutes and twenty -two seconds, that logic informs us and that the law of non -contradiction is a law for us to help govern our thinking.

But this does not tell us how, in an atheist worldview, he can account for conceptual, transcendent, logical absolutes such as the law of non -contradiction.

At about three minutes in, TBS again tells us that the universe behaves in a manner consistent with itself.

Okay, then I'll say again that TAG deals with absolute logical truth statements.

Take, for example, the law of non -contradiction. It deals with statements of truth and falsity. Such statements require minds.

On the other hand, a rock having mass, or water being a liquid, does not require a mind.

We are talking about truth statements, the truth statements of logical absolutes, not the physical behavior of the universe.

And no, logical statements such as the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false, are not derived by looking at the physical universe.

Again, TBS fails to give an account for the existence of logical absolutes. At three minutes and 44 seconds,

TBS says that logic is man -made in both the atheistic and theistic worldviews. Well, saying it does not make it so, and TBS has not demonstrated his statement to be true.

Still, the issue at hand is about logical absolutes. They are true wherever you are and whenever you are.

They are not dependent upon human minds for their validity, because human minds contradict themselves and each other.

Logical absolutes are not dependent upon conditions such as location or time for their validity.

They transcend these factors. As a Christian, I affirm that logical absolutes are the result of God's transcendent and absolute mind.

But TBS and, in my opinion, all other atheists cannot provide the necessary preconditions for the transcendental truth nature of logical absolutes.

Anyway, he then goes on to relate logic to languages. But human languages cannot account for logical absolutes because language is a subjective construction and depends on culture.

It depends on it for its formation. It depends on culture for its development. But logic, on the other hand, does not.

They are completely different things. At four minutes in, TBS says that logic was created and is dependent upon people observing what exists.

Well, it is obvious that TBS is failing to distinguish between logical absolutes and logical processes based on those absolutes.

Maybe he didn't really understand the Tagg argument I presented. Or maybe he doesn't understand it in any way.

I don't know. So, just let me clarify again. Tagg states that logical absolutes, the foundational truths of logical processes, cannot be of human origin because human minds are self -contradictory and contradict each other.

What one person believes is absolute, another may not. Therefore, logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds that are not dependent upon them.

Even when people are observing things, it is still a product of human minds. This means that humans did not create logical absolutes.

Observing things and making conclusions does not account for logical absolutes.

Think about it. How do you observe the third law of logic which says that statements are either true or false?

You don't. So, TBS has not yet accounted for logical absolutes from his atheistic perspective.