Thanks go to Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Community of Austin for many of these observations.
Matt Slick is a christian apologist and founder of CARM(Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry). The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (or TAG for short) is Slick's attempt at proving god's existence through logic and philosophy.
You can read his full argument here:
To summarize:
Mr. Slick proposes that logical absolutes are conceptual.
Since they are Absolute they require an Absolute mind.
This Absolute mind is god.
TAG can easily get very messy. I've decided not to question any of the philosophy in TAG, even though in my experience many people do find it questionable. Going the philosophy route gets very messy very fast and I think simple analyses of his logic is enough to draw a meaningful conclusion.
I've found this is the simplest way of going about it:
One fatal problem arises when Mr. Slick fails to show that Logical Absolutes are conceptual.
Premise 6. A. states:
"Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature."
"Logic is a process of the mind." I agree.
"Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes." I agree.
"Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature." Does not follow.
This is a logical fallacy on Mr. Slick's part.
Logical Absolutes <----- Logic
This simple diagram shows how logic is based on logical absolutes.
If logic is conceptual there is no requirement for logical absolutes to be conceptual. We create conceptions of non-conceptual things all the time.
Chair <----- Concept of Chair
Our concept of a chair is based on the chair.
Does this make the original physical chair necessarily conceptual? Of course not.
Mr. Slick continues with
Premise 6. B:
"Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not."
I agree. They are either conceptual or non-conceptual.
B. i "If they are conceptual by nature then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence."
I disagree. Mr. Slick has failed to show how concepts are not tied to the physical universe, he simply states it as true.
In reality concepts require a mind to conceive of them and everything we know of minds suggests they are physical (i.e. show me a mind without a brain). This is however irrelevant to the main point of showing that Logical Absolutes are conceptual. So I will move on.
B. ii "If they are non-conceptual by nature then
a. What is their nature?"
This is an odd way of suddenly trying to turn the burden of proof onto the reader. No one has claimed they are non-conceptual by nature.
In pointing out Mr. Slick's error in Premise 6. A. I am merely showing that his reasoning is flawed and thus he hasn't proven anything. I am not making a claim about the nature of logical absolutes myself. They still could be conceptual as far as I know. But it still needs to be proven.
b. "If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical, then there must be a 3rd (or 4th...) option. What would that option be?"
It is not denied that Logical Absolutes are either physical or conceptual. At this point their nature is simply unknown.
c. "If another option cannot be logically offered, then the only options available to us are conceptual and physical."
See response to d.
d. "Since logic is not a property of physical nature, see point 5 above, then we must conclude that they are conceptual by nature."
With c and d Mr. Slick continues his bizarre game of spinning the burden of proof. "Conceptual and Physical are the only options, can you think of any other ones? No? Then it must be true!" Meanwhile Mr. Slick has failed to actually prove that physical and conceptual ARE the only options. The burden is on HIM to prove this. He is the one presenting the argument and he must prove his own premises.
Mr. Slick is using physical vs conceptual as an absolute dichotomy here. While he has no justification to do this. "If something isn't physical it MUST be conceptual."
Firstly he has failed to prove these are the only two options.
Secondly the second option (conceptual) is possibly contingent on the first (physical). As I've already covered, concepts requires minds which require physical biology. If the conceptual depends on the physical they cannot be an absolute dichotomy.
Now we can argue about dualism back and forth. However the plain and simple philosophical controversy about it should shake anyone's faith in physical vs conceptual being a proven absolute dichotomy even if you ignore my first point.
We have to be very careful when dealing with absolute dichotomies. We don't know everything and these broad categorizations and generalizations are frequently and easily fallacious.
Most of the time they are structured in a more logically "strong" way.
For example:
Physical vs Non-Physical
or
Conceptual vs Non-Conceptual
rather than
Physical vs Conceptual
e. "Simply "denying" that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical nature isn't sufficient."
It is not denied that Logical Absolutes could be either physical or conceptual. At this point their nature is simply unknown and the absolute dichotomy Mr. Slick draws his conclusion from has not been properly established.
8 comments:
More like arguments agaisnt God.
God bless America!
This entry isn't an argument against god. It's an argument against a certain supposed proof for god.
There is an important difference.
Me disproving the The Transcendental Argument does not disprove god. It just disproves The Transcendental Argument.
Mr. Slick is not trying to win a debate, he is letting Atheists show everyone how unreasonable the Atheist position is. It is not about winning it is about Reasonability.
Blesssings.
I am not trying to win a debate Mannew. The truth does genuinely concern me. Mr. Slick's argument is logically invalid. It's as simple as that.
I don't see how an invalid argument can possibly be used to support a stance of "Reasonability".
There are in fact many more problems with Slick's TAG
then what I even specifically discussed above. I think it is a textbook example of an unreasonable position.
If you truly do care about "Reasonability" then I think you should be more concerned about making reasonable arguments yourself. Rather then trying to "show everyone" how "unreasonable" the other side is.
Hello Paul, I take it that you are watching the debate between Brendon and Matt on CARM.
If truth is your desire you should be able to see the flaws in both sides of the argument?
Ok, let us take a look at what you wrote in your original post. I will even take the long rout.
Laws of Logic are conceptual in nature when they are “in use”. I think Mr. Slick may have added to the confusion by adding another label to the word logic “Absolute”. Maybe he is just baiting.
In your “Chair Diagram”, you seem to of have confused yourself with the words that Mr. Slick “didn’t” say. He did not say that non-conceptual things could not be conceptual also; perceptual things are both conceptual and non-conceptual (perceptual). We can perceive (non-conceptual) of a chair when we are in the same location of the chair but when we are not we can also imagine (conceptualize) the chair.
In your response to 6Bi, you first say you disagree that they are conceptual in nature and then you go on to say that,
“In reality concepts require a mind to conceive of them and everything we know of minds suggests they are physical”.
You admit that you have to conceive (conceptual) to use them.
You seem to think that because you say that the human mind is “physical” that this gives you some kind of advantage. The mind still as to conceptualize logical absolutes to use them if the thing that is being evaluated cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched. Do they not? If you disagree, please explain to me how a “physical” mind can perceptually use logical absolutes if the thing that is being evaluated cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched?? But then we conceptualize when we use them don’t we? The use of Logical Absolutes is conceptual isn’t?, so that would seem to suggest that they are conceptual in nature wouldn’t it?
It is pretty much accepted that logical absolutes are not perceptual in nature, so the only other option that is left is the conceptual. He is just boxing in his opponent in.
In your response to Biib, This is where your argument becomes completely unreasonable.
We both know that Slick asserts that Logical Absolutes are conceptual. And because he cannot give you an answer to this baiting question (a third option), so his opponent can continue the debate he has failed to prove these are the only two options? Slick knows that logically there are only two options. So because he does this you want him to give you a third so you can continue? His assertion is that logical absolutes are either conceptual or non-conceptual in nature, two options, not three. So if you want a third the burden is on you to find it. And if there is a third, present it. TAG asserts only two options.
If the mind is physical or not it does not matter, what matters is that the mind as to conceptualize to use them correctly and in all evaluation that we are presented with in life. See above.
Slicks argument seems pretty straight forward to me when you apply the Laws of Logic to evaluate the argument, and my faith is still intact. A matter of fact every time I read, listen or debate it gets a little stronger. Not because my arguments are so good but because my opponents arguments are always so unreasonable.
I think Slick’s argument could maybe have been presented more strongly if it were labeled Conceptual vs. Perceptual. Slick used non-conceptual so he could dig a hole for his opponent to jump into (third option).
I fail to understand why any Atheist would deny that they are conceptual? If truth is the goal of philosophy, it should be welcomed when we get closer to it.
I would so like to present reasonable arguments myself, but delusions run deep, so they have to be removed before the truth can sink in. This may sound argumentative to you but I do not mean for it to be, I truly care for the people I debate with but the only way that someone who is hardened in their position to see their reasoning flaws is when they are pointed out to them.
Blesssings.
I'm glad you've decided to have a conversation. : )
To answer your initial question I haven't been following the debate between Brendon and Matt. In fact I didn't even know it was happening.
I lost interest in following anything Matt Slick had to say quite awhile ago. After spending some time reading discussions he had taken part in as well as other writings of his. I came to the conclusion that he was intellectually dishonest and made basic errors in logic which he was unwilling to even address. I am willing to reexamine that conclusion, however.
If we are to have a rather long winded and complex discussion (the best kind :P) I'd suggest we continue in e-mail.
You can send me a message at waltonsimons *at* gmail &dot& com if you agree.
Hello. And Bye.
Post a Comment