Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God
The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God is an argument developed by Michael Martin on infidels.org. It deals with logic, morality, and science to refute the Transcendental Argument for God's existence, and to disprove the existence of God.
|“||How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.||”|
This is false. Logic is not dependent or caused by God. Logic is an attribute of God. Like God's omnipotence is not caused or dependent on God's existence, it is simply an attribute of God. God can't change logic because it is in his nature, like how God cannot do evil, as goodness is in his nature. Logic, if it is a part of God, is logically necessary, because it is a part of a necessary being (God).
This does not answer TAG in any way. The laws of logic would need to exist in some way. And the best (and only) explanation we have is the existence of God.
|“||Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.||”|
Firstly, we don't know all of the laws of nature. God could have arranged the laws of nature in a way that allows miracles, and we wouldn't be able to find that law. There isn't enough knowledge to assert this as evidence against God.
Secondly, Quantum Mechanics provides a scientific basis for miracles. God could simply "program" quantum mechanics to do the miracles.
Lastly, the laws of nature simply require a creator. Quantum fluctuations don't create laws of nature. The laws of nature are immaterial, so how could they be created by material? If God doesn't exist, the laws of science are results of our observations. They wouldn't exist in reality. Thus, doing science presupposes the existence of God.
|“||Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.||”|
Morality is not dependent on nor caused by God. It is part of God. Like his omnipotence. God cannot make good bad and bad good. That isn't what he does. Such a God is malevolent, while the God of the bible is good. The fact still stands that objective morality cannot exist without God.