Answering A Profane And Inadequate Response To The TAG

The powers that be at Choosing Hats have decided against allowing comments which contain profanity. The very nature of the site should incline people toward keeping their comments clean. However, there is still an occasional comment that requires moderation. Do not expect your comment to be given any attention if it contains profanity.

Someone wrote a “question” in response to this post regarding the self-evident nature of the basic laws of logic being “enough” to show that TAG is  “a trick built upon expectations about what atheists will attempt to do out of ignorance and lack of experience with rhetoric” and not “a true argument for the existence of any gods” and that it is hence useless to go through all of the premises of the argument. The conclusion was, “All we need is to show the tricks for what they are”.

Please take note that while I have no obligation to answer a comment that did not meet the qualifications for being posted on the site I am doing so anyway and further that I am doing so even when the person making the comment felt it satisfactory to call TAG a name and suggest that it can be dismissed without even going through the argument! Unlike my opposition who will not hear my argument, I will hear his and respond.

The person writing the comment insults people (supposedly ignorant and lacking in experience with rhetoric) like Mitch who, to his credit, has spent some time researching and attempting to answer the TAG. The TAG is an actual argument for the existence of God whether it is a successful argument or not and has been shown to be such in the post where the comment was to be placed. The skeptic might call into question the entire concept of “self-evidence” as a supposed justification for logic or any number of other principles, as the question which immediately arises is “self-evident for whom?” and then “how do you know it is self-evident for others?” and “why is it that some still do not accept it?” and “self-evidence does not a truth make” and “what of our deductions from such principles which may easily be mistaken thus showing that self-evidence does not provide enough?”. People disagree over what is self-evident. If something is self-evident, then why do people reject it? It is rather easy to label something “self-evident”, but not nearly as easy to show that something is self-evident or that it is thereby justified. I believe that the existence and nature of God are self-evident, but then, people reject this because they are sinners. So there are many problems with using the “self-evident” claim in response to the skeptic.

Even given that the basic laws of logic are self-evident, it does not follow that they are accounted for. It has not been explained what logic is but only asserted that it is supposedly self-evident and it has not been shown that logic is consistent with the worldview from which the self-evident claim is asserted. For example, many inconsistencies have been pointed out between the laws of logic being immaterial, universal, normative, and necessary (to name some characteristics of logic) and the atheist view of the world.

Even if the aforementioned discussion is set aside, what does it have to do with other things the non-Christian is unable to account for? The TAG may be set forth with any number of accepted features of our experience; for example causality and science, though it is not possible to talk about them all at once. One might say that the non-Christian is unable to account for anything without borrowing from the Christian worldview. For example, the non-Christian cannot account for the existence of the universe, but this is generally not set forth in the TAG is because it is not so central to worldview and experience as to have the same effect when used in the TAG as some of the other parts of experience mentioned above do have.

It is thus insufficient to merely assert that the basic laws of logic are self-evident in an effort to answer the TAG.


2 Comments

Mitchell LeBlanc

“The TAG is an actual argument for the existence of God whether it is a successful argument or not…”

I would agree. Perhaps the commenter was speaking in very specific terms, implying as some have, that the TAG does not meet the criteria to be considered an “Argument For Proof”. I’ve heard this said sometimes, though I’m not quite sure what it means.

Shame on the commenter for implicitly insulting me! =(

michael mattson

Just stumbled across this post. Was given a link to Mitchell’s paper (by him) and was looking for info on Sean Choi’s submission on the TAG when I found this site. Always nice to see TAG being defended.


Leave a Comment