colonizers:sarcastic rot:vaguest monadic …

“a completely undefined entity of purest spun handwavium”

That’s my favorite phrase ever.

I use reformed theology to argue for the existence of Shit Fairies.

P v Q
~ P
/ Q

Where “P” is atheistic materialism and “Q” is Christian theism.

[Sans the symbols, this is P or Q, not P, therefore Q. Informally, “Either atheistic materialism is true or Christian theism is true. Atheistic materialism is not true, therefore Christian theism is true.”]

The argument is formally valid, but “valid” does not mean “true” (e.g. “All trucks are blue; John has a truck; John’s truck is blue.” is technically valid, but false).

The Christian presuppostionalist starts by a strict dichotomy. Either atheistic materialism is true or Christian theism is true (the “P” can be changed according to the debate partner; it could be that “P” is Islam, etc. It is only important that the “P” is the oppositions position.).

To make their case, not-P (when “P” is atheistic materialism), they appeal to supposedly immaterial, universal laws of logic and morality. They argue that it would not make sense if a universe that began entirely by chance was governed by immaterial, universal laws. If the atheist cannot account for those rules, then Christian theism is a better alternative because it can explain why universal, immaterial laws would govern the universe–i.e. God put them there.

Formally, the case for not-P would be:

~ (x . P)
(Ex)
/ ~P

Where “x” is immaterial, universal laws of logic and “P” is atheistic materialism.

[Sans the symbols, it is not the case that x exists and P exists simultaneously, x exists, therefore P does not exist. Informally, “Immaterial, universal laws of logic cannot exist if atheistic materialism is true. Immaterial, universal laws of logic exists, therefore atheistic materialism cannot be true.]

This argument, too, is technically valid, but equally false.

Obviously, this is a swiss cheese argument in which an opponent is free to choose which hole to walk (or drive a truck) through.

Morgan discusses an obvious one. Saying “god is responsible” is no answer at all. One might as well put any other term in that spot (e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster). It is only because we have heard this term “god” so much that we don’t immediately fall into hysterical laughter like we would if someone suggested magical, invisible elves are responsible for universal laws of logic.

Another point is that this is a kind of “god of the gaps” argument that we see especially pronounced in cosmological (and intelligent design) arguments. It is assumed that just because someone may not currently know how there could be immaterial, universal laws of logic within a universe begun and governed by chance, that there can never be an explanation for this. It could be, however, that we could discover something about the universe itself that dictates immaterial, universal laws of logic without reference to a god at all.

There is also my point that it may not be the case that there are immaterial, universal laws of logic. Instead, laws of logic may simply be a biproduct of the definitions we give certain words like “if,” “then,” “and,” “or,” “but,” “not,” etc. Our logic would certainly appear universal, because we can only think in terms of the language we know, but would not necessarily be so. “Logic” is merely following our grammatic and semantic rules of language.

If logic is only a biproduct of our language (which explains why Eastern and Western logic is so divergent), then there is an atheistic, materialist account of (seemingly) universal laws of logic. The transcendental argument fails, then because it does not demonstrate the “impossibility of the contrary” (i.e. it does not demonstrate (Ex) (that immaterial, universal laws of logic exist) so it also fails to demonstrate ~ P (that atheistic materialism is not true)).

This argument was only ever effective because it caught people off-guard. Debaters had come to discuss the merits of theistic arguments and were, often, not prepared to justify their use of reason (which is normally assumed in a debate). Now that people have had time to investigate TAG, fewer people have trouble with it.