Coherence and Circularity

Coherence and Circularity

While searching the net I found another article written by the same person from www.mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com. In this article he again try’s to refute the Transcendental Argument for God’s existence. Again I believe that it fails,

He says,
I could easily argue the following:

All dragons breathe fire
Smaug is a dragon
Therefore Smaug breathes fire “

"Now I certainly assume that all my terms mean something. I mean something by 'dragon'; I mean something by 'fire'; and I mean something by 'Smaug'. They each have a "nature" as you say. But how, in assenting to the validity of the argument (and it is clearly valid), am I assuming the existence of dragons”?"

“Also, your formulation of TAG is a hypothetical argument. The fallacy of assuming what you are trying to prove applies only to categorical arguments. Hypothetical argument don't assume anything other than the laws of logic and that there is a connection between certain propositions in a conditional relationship”.

The problem with this argument is that it is based on a Hypothetical argument. Yes it is true that the conclusion follows the premise. But that does not mean that dragons must exist. But this argument does not work with the transcendental argument as the premise, God must exist to make intelligibility of human experience is justifying entity’s that do exist in the world. Logic, morality, evil, rationality, do exist, so what premise can justify there existence. For the Christian it is God. The atheist’s argument is not justifying anything that does exist.


Then he says,

Any argument, which is intended to prove god's existence, but in the premises presupposes god's biblical nature, begs the question.

TAG is intended to prove god's existence, but in the premises presupposes god's biblical nature

Therefore, TAG begs the question.

As I showed in my last post all systems of epistemology are circularity. I mean I could state the following,

“Any argument, which is intended to prove rationalism’ existence, but in the premises presupposes rationalism’s nature, begs the question.”

“Rationalism is intended to prove rationalism’ existence (by using it), but in the premise presupposes rationalism’s nature.”“Therefore rationalism begs the question”

The position of the Christian is that the Christian God can be proven by the impossibility of the contrary. That is, reject the Christian God and no sense can be made out of moral obligation, moral indignation, the laws of logic, or induction, entities that are a part of the lives of all sane, intelligent human beings. The Christian position is that our worldview will display the internal coherence of its claims. The question for the atheist is, Is your worldview coherent? Can you get intelligence form non-intelligence, can rationality that was produce by chance impersonal matter tell us anything about the impersonal irrational world. Can the atheists justify any form or morality other than “what is”. I mean if we just chose our own morality, what is the difference between some one who has none? They both do the same, which is what ever they want.