>
> Transcendental argument for the existence of God
>
> The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an
> argument for the existence of God which attempts to show that logic,
> science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and
> knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in
> the existence of the Christian God.
Holy Shit! If the purveyors of this holy crap don't see its crap from
its very premise, why read more? It follow from their premise that any
logic, science, ethics or human experience of a Jew,Hindu, Buddhist,
Deist, Unitarian or Secularist is not meaningful.
> A version was formulated by
> Immanuel Kant in his 1763 work The Only Possible Argument in Support
> of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.
Yikes. If Kant wrote that, consistent with the above arguemt, then
such a weak mind could not have come to reasonable claims in his
Categorical Imperative (similar ot Golden Rule) arguements. Another
icon falls today.
>A version is also
> commonly used by presuppositional apologists and is considered by
> some of them (especially those of the Van Tillian variety) to be the
> only valid method of apologetical argumentation.
"The ONLY" --hmmm sounds quite open minded.
>
> Contents [hide]
> 1 Transcendental reasoning
> 2 The argument
> 3 Criticisms of the TAG
> 4 Defenses of the TAG
> 5 More information
> 6 See also
> 7 References
> 8 External links
> 8.1 Articles
> 8.2 Debates
>
> [edit]
>
> Transcendental reasoning
>
> Transcendental arguments should not be confused with transcendent
> arguments, or arguments for the existence of something transcendent.
> In other words, they are distinct from both, arguments that appeal to
> a transcendent intuition or sense as evidence (Fideism), and
> arguments which move from direct evidence to the exisitence of a
> transcendent thing (Classical Apologetics).
>
> They are also distinct from standard deductive and inductive forms of
> reasoning. Where a standard deductive argument looks for what we can
> deduce from the fact of X, and a standard inductive argument looks
> for what we can infer from experience of X, a transcendental argument
> looks for the necessary prior conditions to both the fact and
> experience of X.
The Knower.
>Thus, "I entitle transcendental all knowledge which
> is occupied not so much with objects as with the mode of our
> knowledge of objects in so far as this mode of knowledge is to be
> possible a priori." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason,
> Introduction, VII).
>
...
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
