1 / 22

Christian rejection of TAG

Explore critical remarks on the Transcendental Argument for God, questioning the nature of thoughts, the concept of a perfect mind reflecting God's thoughts, and the knowability of divine thoughts. Delve into the limitations of human understanding and the challenges of attributing perfect thoughts to a divine being.

mballard
Download Presentation

Christian rejection of TAG

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Copied from CARM.org "Transcendental Argument for God"  (TAG)(under fair use terms) with critical remarks initalics: Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational will produce irrational thoughts. A mind that is rational will produce rational thoughts. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Christian rejection of TAG

  2. Christian rejection of TAG From CARM (continued): Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space; and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.

  3. Christian rejection of TAG We begin our analysis by describing the nature of thoughts, concepts and ideas. We will continue the analysis of how we come to understand another's (God's or anyone else's) thoughts.  The analysis will continue to the next step by showing that Matt Slick doesn't know with any degree of certainty, another person's thoughts (God or anyone else's).  And we will end the analysis by showing that Matt Slick's assertions above not only not known, but not KNOWABLE with any reliability.  We will then provide an epilog to the analysis which will expose historic sources of the above assertions and why they should be rejected by Christians because they violate essential Christian doctrine.

  4. Christian rejection of TAG From above: 1.  A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. Fair enough.  For the purpose of this analysis, we will let this stand as stated. A mind that is irrational will produce irrational thoughts A mind that is rational will produce rational thoughts. We will deal with these two assertions together in the following analysis:

  5. Reflecting God's thoughts: Critical review The process that produces thoughts (rational or irrational, or non-rational) is not known.  In fact, unless we are able to peer into another's mind prior to the expressions of thoughts, the process that produces thoughts is unknowable.  The only way one knows anything of another's thoughts, is the manner in which the one that produced the thoughts, has chosen to express them.

  6. Critical Review To repeat from CARM: It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space; and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.

  7. Critical review The continuation of our analysis will treat all of these assertions together:

  8. Critical review When one has produced a thought, the process of producing that thought is non-transferable to another.  We can see this in human creative activities such as composing (music, poetry, etc).  The actual process  of composing is internal and exclusive to the one doing the composing.  The written notes, musical tones,  or words are the RESULT of the process, not the process itself.

  9. Critical review In theological terms, we can say that ALL we know of God's thoughts, is the manner in which God has chosen to reveal His thoughts (ie. the scriptures, the kind acts of believers, the person of Christ, etc.)  .  We know  NOTHING (with any degree of certainty) of the thoughts themselves.  We know NOTHING (with any degree of certainty) of the process that God has gone through prior to revealing His thoughts.  All we know of God's thoughts is the results of that process (whatever it may be), just as all we know of human composing process, is the result.

  10. God's Thoughts We say again: ALL we know of God's thoughts, and all we know of the process that produced God's thoughts, is the manner in which God has chosen to reveal them.

  11. Epilog The above assertions by Matt Slick (and many of the other presuppositional apologists), are not unique.    They have been expressed in philosophic circles for many centuries.  The epitome of these expressions was found in the 19th century Hegelian assertion: Ultimate reality is absolute mind (Geist)

  12. Epilog What Matt Slick (and the rest of the presuppositional apologists) seemed to miss is that assertions like: Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. Do not express Christian principles, nor biblical principles.  In fact, their history is Greek (and pagan), idealist (19th century Hegelianism), and humanist.

  13. Christian Rejection As we shall now show, not only should these notions be rejected for the lack of Christian or biblical support, they should also be rejected for violating a central (and essential) doctrine; The Fall. According to standard Christian understandings of the Fall, everything in the physical cosmos, fell with Adam.  The result of the Fall, is not only an alienation (separation) of mankind from God, but also an alienation of man from his fellow man, alienation of mankind from the cosmos around him, and an alienation of man from himself.

  14. Christian Rejection A further result of the Fall (sometimes clumsily referred to as the 'noetic effects of The Fall'), is the alienation of words from the objects they represent.  As a simple example:  When we go to restaurant and order a meal from a menu, and upon receiving the meal, we do not eat the menu. Why?  Because the representation of the meal on the menu, is not identical to the meal itself.

  15. Christian Rejection We may say that one of the results of the alienation of The Fall, has resulted in a corruption of the relationship of the meal, and menu.  They are not identical.  The menu represents the meal, but it is a corrupt (because of The Fall) representation of the meal.

  16. Christian Rejection In the same sense, when God's thoughts are revealed in a fallen cosmos, the revelations are also corrupted by The Fall.  The words are corrupted words, the reflections are corrupt reflections.  Every verbal or written expression of God's thoughts within a fallen cosmos, is alienated from the thoughts they represent.  This is why misunderstandings can occur.

  17. Conclusion We can now conclude: Matt Slick (nor anyone else), cannot assert: It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.

  18. Conclusion Nor can Matt Slick say: We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space; and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.

  19. Conclusion Because the process from God's thoughts to  the expressions of His thoughts in revelations  is not knowable (even as the thought processes of our fellow men into words is not knowable).  All we know of God's thoughts is how they are revealed by God.

  20. Conclusion We must also reject such notions as: It seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.

  21. Conclusion Because these assertions necessarily assume the reflection of those thoughts (of God) is also perfect.  This expression is not Christian (nor biblical).   Rather,  it is straightforwardly a humanist, idealist (Hegelian),  and secular. The truth of such assertions would also necessarily imply an explicit violation of the essential doctrine of The Fall. 

  22. For more Information: WWW.MATTSLICKFALLACIES.COM WWW.CARMFALLACIES.COM WWW.WHYCARMSUCKS.COM

More Related