Comments on: A Brief Word On The Transcendental Argument For The Existence Of God

By: Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1

Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1 — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:37:42 +0000

[...] “No Place to Stand, Part II” (8/Dec/09), “Lost in a Sea of Subjectivism” (8/Dec/09), and “A Brief Word on the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God” [...]

By: Answering A Profane And Inadequate Response To The TAG | Choosing Hats

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:56:50 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: ZaoThanatoo

ZaoThanatoo — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:50:20 +0000

Oh, I think I see…
You’re using the non-traditional Don Collett-style (influenced by Strawson/VanFraasen) formulation of the TAG? (Have you been reading Oliphint? )

But isn’t this really just an analog of modus ponens (resting on the definition of “presupposes” in the first premise) in this formulation?

Nothing like mistaking a rather incisive argument for a type-o… Shame on me…

By: chrisbolt

chrisbolt — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:33:25 +0000

I stuck in a few footnotes, thanks for the comments.

By: Mitchell LeBlanc

Mitchell LeBlanc — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:35:17 +0000

What about the form I’ve offered in my paper?

(1) P

(2) If not-Q then not-P

(3) Therefore, Q

Where P is Logic and Q is the Christian God this seems to me to grasp the essence of what you intend to show.

By: ZaoThanatoo

ZaoThanatoo — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:01:25 +0000

Okey dokey.

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:58:51 +0000

The premise “Not Logic” is intentional and not necessarily consistent with the first example.

By: ZaoThanatoo

ZaoThanatoo — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:45:42 +0000

I think under your second TAG section, you mean for the second premise to be “Logic” (not “Not Logic”), that is, if it’s going to be consistent with the first example (“C presupposes G…”).