Text of post in full:
The typical Van Till TAG argument goes something like this:
X (God) is the necessary precondition for the possibility of Y(reason/logic) , Y exists therefore X exists.
Somebody who isn't well-adept to TAG but philosophically minded will say this is circular. You're using God to prove the existence of logic....by using logic. Kant struggled with this, but Van Till created an out for the TAG believer by making a discrepancy between viscious circularity and virtuous circularity. He stated that any meta-logic premise regardless will be circular. Naturalism would be viscious circularity because it's assuming "accident" (that is, unguided) reason for reason is incoherent because "accident" assumes meaning and purpose/tautology in the first place; it's saying purpose exists in a purposeless universe which is not a paradox but a contradiction. However, with God you have an all-powerful all-knowing being in whose nature and being is reason/logic.
I was a TAG "debatebro" for a while until I came across a wonderful paper by Amy Karofsky titeld "God, Modalities, and Conceptualism". [note: see this evaluation of this paper here] The paper gave very good arguments against modal arguments for God, from there I found my own critique that is sort of like the Euthrypo problem but tied to modality. Since then I have tried to contact both Dyer and Jimbob in order for them to respond to the video I made but neither has contacted me. I once tried to bring this up in their discord but they treated me so poorly (so much for Christian kindness) that I had to leave. I asked them to watch my video and they said "we don't do self-promotion, just give me your argument" as if I could lay out an entire philosophical counter-argument in a discord comment. Anyway, I will get on with the structure of my argument:If God is responsible for the POSSIBILITY of knoweldge then there are two roads we can take here, either:
A: logic was arbitrarily created, this means that logic could have been anything. According to TAG logic is invariable and eternal. TAG doesn't work here obviously because logic could have been literally anything and have any form. Therefore we can't use what we see as logic now as "proof".
B: Logic was not a possibility at all but within the nature or "Logos" of God. If this is true then logic as it exists was not made by God's will as TAG claims but a necessary feature of his existence.Divine conceptualism and the "logos" does not solve this dilemma
Most TAG opponents will backtrack this fork and state something like: "logic exists within God's divine mind. A is not the case because logic/meaning is eternal and unchanging BECAUSE it comes from God's mind which we have access too. B also is incoherent because God is acting within his nature, God is free to act within his nature therefore he is not 'bound' by anything."
There are two responses to this, I will demonstrate why this isn't a good argument:
Most TAG propenents will hand-wave the "free-will" argument and use God's immutable nature, however, this is a severe problem with TAG. If both God and Logic are necessary then one cannot ground the other, you can't use God to ground logic anymore than you can use any other metaphysical theory. "Necessary" in philosophy means that it MUST exist (as in it cannot fail to exist). If you say that logic is necessary then that means there is no universe in which it cannot exist, it has standalone existince in that nothing decided the way it is or how it works. It exists because it MUST exist. Do you see how you cannot ground God anymore? Logic becomes another brute fact of reality like anything else. TAG then becomes something like this: "The fact that Bachelors are unmarried proves Bachelors exist."
If logic is a necessary feature of God's nature then logic doesn't function as an external precondition proving God, it simply follows from what God is. Describing God's nature is not the same thing as grounding logic. put in propositional form it goes something like this:
1: If something is necessary God could not have made it otherwise
2: If God couldn't have made it otherwise then logic isn't a product of divine choice
therefore: You cannot ground God in logic
Technical-disOrder bases his critique on a dilemma reminiscent of the Euthyphro problem, adapted for modality:
The Dilemma: If God is the precondition for logic, one of two things must be true:
A) Logic is arbitrary: God created logic by His will. If so, logic could have been anything, which contradicts the TAG claim that logic is invariant and eternal.
B) Logic is necessary (The "Logos"): Logic is not a choice but an essential feature of God’s nature.
The Critique of "B": Most apologists choose B, but the author argues this fails because if logic is "necessary," it must exist in all possible worlds.
The "Brute Fact" Problem: If logic is identical to God’s nature, the author contends that saying "God grounds logic" is a tautology (Logic exists because a logical being exists). He argues this simply relocates the brute fact from "logic exists" to "God's nature is logical" without adding any new explanatory power.
Clarity and Structure
The post is well-structured and demonstrates a high level of philosophical literacy. By moving beyond the "TAG is circular" surface-level critique, the author engages with the meta-logic and modal status of the argument, which is where the strongest philosophical debates over TAG occur.
Strength of the "Explanatory Power" Critique
The author’s strongest point is the Identity Problem. In philosophical grounding, if A is identical to B, it is difficult to argue that A "grounds" B in a way that explains B’s existence. If logic is God’s mind, then "logic exists" and "God’s mind exists" are essentially the same statement.
Weaknesses and Counter-Points
The evaluation would be incomplete without noting the rebuttals found in the comments (specifically from Prestigious_Tour_538):
Ontological vs. Epistemic Grounding: Critics argue the author treats "necessity" as "self-sufficient." The theist's claim is that while logic is necessary, it is dependently necessary, it exists because of God's aseity (self-existence).
The Applicability Problem: TAG proponents argue that even if logic is a "brute fact" in an atheist universe, that doesn't explain why it applies to material reality or how finite minds have access to it. They argue God provides the "link" that a brute-fact necessity lacks.
Conclusion
Technical-disOrder successfully identifies a significant "internal" pressure point in TAG: The relocation of brute facts. While he may not "solve" the 2,000-year-old debate, he correctly identifies that "Grounding" requires more than just stating two things are the same; it requires showing why the proposed foundation is more "ultimate" than the thing it’s grounding.To refute Technical-disOrder’s critique of the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), one must address his central claim: that grounding logic in God’s nature is either an arbitrary choice or a "redundant" relocation of a brute fact.
The standard theistic rebuttal, often voiced by proponents of Divine Simplicity and Classical Theism, argues that the author’s dilemma relies on a misunderstanding of what it means for something to be "necessary."
The author’s primary "Horn B" argument is that if logic is necessary, it needs no ground. He claims that saying "God is the ground of logic" is like saying "Bachelors are unmarried proves bachelors exist."
The Refutation: This treats "necessity" as synonymous with "self-explanation." In philosophy, a truth can be necessarily true but still dependently true.
- For example, the properties of a triangle are "necessary," but they are dependent on the definition of a plane and lines.
- The theist argues that logic is necessary but derivative. It exists in all possible worlds because God exists in all possible worlds. Logic is not a "brute fact" (something that exists for no reason); it is an attribute of the only truly self-existent being ($aseity$). By removing God, you aren't left with "necessary logic"—you are left with a floating abstraction with no ontological foundation.
The author suggests that "Logic is necessary" is a sufficient stopping point.
The Refutation: Even if we grant that the "Law of Identity" (A = A) is a necessary brute fact, this fails to explain the necessary, non-empirical foundations that make human knowledge, experience, or cognition possible for human experience. TAG isn't just about the existence of logic; it’s about its applicability.
The Gap: Why does an abstract, non-material "law of logic" perfectly govern a physical, changing universe?
The Link: If logic is just a brute fact of "the way things are," there is no reason why human minds (evolved for survival, not metaphysical truth) should have reliable access to it.
The Solution: Grounding logic in a Personal Creator provides the "bridge." If the same Mind that grounds logic also designed the human mind and the physical world, the uniformity of nature and our ability to reason become intelligible rather than a massive, unexplained coincidence.
The author claims that if God's nature is logic, then the argument is a tautology: "Logic exists because logic exists."
The Refutation: Identifying A with B is not always a redundant tautology; often, it is an informative identity. For example, identifying "Water" as $H_2O$ is not a tautology. It tells you the composition and nature of water.
By identifying logic with God’s mind, the theist is providing a categorical explanation. They are moving logic from the category of "weird, floating, abstract object" to the category of "expression of a rational, necessary Mind." This changes the ontological status of logic from a mystery to an outpouring of a self-consistent being.
Technical-disOrder argues that other systems (Platonism, Materialism) are "just as reasonable" if logic is simply necessary.
The Refutation: TAG is an Internal Critique. It argues that if you start with Materialism (a universe of blind, shifting matter), you cannot justify the existence of invariant, immaterial, universal laws of logic without "smuggling" them in from a theistic framework.
- If you say logic is just "necessary" in a materialist world, you are positing an immaterial, eternal "ghost" in your machine that contradicts your own materialism.
- Therefore, the "refutation" of the author's post is that Theism is the only system where the necessity of logic is actually consistent with the rest of the worldview.
No comments:
Post a Comment