Transcendental Argument for Nonexistence of God

[Wessexman]

Not causality -- necessity and contingency. As I said at the top of the argument, if you reject the premises for the god the argument attacks then the argument doesn't apply to you.

Necessity and contingency is causality. What is contingent is caused by what is necessary, which is uncaused or absolute. The idea of God you are trying to debunk says God is necessary but then you go straight to arguing he is contingent. It is nonsense. Your argument shows nothing because it is about simply saying what causes God, his nature okay what causes this and so on and so forth when the very definition of God is he is uncaused. It would be equally applicable, or ultimately inapplicable, to someone who suggested the universe was uncaused. Whatever is necessary or absolute must be absolute in itself by definition. It therefore does no good to use reason or discursive thought to try and completely define the absolute because such are indirect tools of knowledge that rely on causal thinking, deducing cause from effect, what is necessary from what is contingent.

My argument simply shows that God isn't the creator of everything external to God's essence since God couldn't have caused identity to exist and identity isn't a part of God. So, conceptions of God as the creator of everything are false; identity necessarily exists and doesn't exist because of God and doesn't exist "as" God either.

Nonsense. I notice you do have a crude, popular and modern theistic view of God in mind that makes him very personal(he is suprapersonal, not impersonal of course.) and utterly independent from the universe and some sort of human-esque creator. The Christian God has never traditionally been this, he is not perhaps identical in all respects to the Platonic One or Vedanta Brahman but is close. Identity is but another word for saying God is God, he is necessary and absolute. What is necessary and absolute is necessary and absolute in itself.

 

[Meow Mix]

Necessity and contingency is causality. What is contingent is caused by what is necessary, which is uncaused or absolute.

That's not correct. Necessity/contingency is wholly separate from cause/effect. Identity is necessary and I am a contingent being; but identity doesn't cause me to exist: it's just necessary for me to exist; or rather it's necessary that if I exist I comply with identity.

For instance, the tallness of trees is contingent. It's necessarily true that if the oak tree is taller than the elm tree which is taller than the spruce that all things considered the oak tree is taller than the spruce tree; but this necessary truth didn't cause the heights of any of the trees.

In fact the transcendental argument doesn't even negate the possibility that God is ontologically necessary. An ontologically necessary thing can be contingent on another ontologically thing while still being necessary itself. (Now, of course, I would challenge anyone who indeed asserted God to be necessary, but that's an argument for another time).

The idea of God you are trying to debunk says God is necessary but then you go straight to arguing he is contingent.

No, my argument never at any time asserted that God is necessary. It only shows that God is contingent on identity.

It is nonsense. Your argument shows nothing because it is about simply saying what causes God, his nature okay what causes this and so on and so forth when the very definition of God is he is uncaused.

The argument doesn't say that God isn't uncaused. You're drawing false equivocations between contingency and the state of being caused.

(Snipping some post to which my response would be the same)

Nonsense. I notice you do have a crude, popular and modern theistic view of God in mind that makes him very personal(he is suprapersonal, not impersonal of course.) and utterly independent from the universe and some sort of human-esque creator. The Christian God has never traditionally been this, he is not perhaps identical in all respects to the Platonic One or Vedanta Brahman but is close. Identity is but another word for saying God is God, he is necessary and absolute. What is necessary and absolute is necessary and absolute in itself.

Even if necessary and absolute, still contingent on identity. My argument still holds if that's true.

Granted, I doubt that God is necessary. Would you care to justify that assertion or is it just a presuppositional premise? Regardless, my argument stands whether that premise is true or not. Whether or not God Himself is necessary is irrelevant to my point.

 

[Wessexman]

That's not correct. Necessity/contingency is wholly separate from cause/effect. Identity is necessary and I am a contingent being; but identity doesn't cause me to exist: it's just necessary for me to exist; or rather it's necessary that if I exist I comply with identity.

But what is contingent must be caused by what is necessary or it would be necessary. What doesn't exist in its own right exists because it is caused by something else.

For instance, the tallness of trees is contingent. It's necessarily true that if the oak tree is taller than the elm tree which is taller than the spruce that all things considered the oak tree is taller than the spruce tree; but this necessary truth didn't cause the heights of any of the trees.

But it is contingent because it is caused by something outside itself.

No, my argument never at any time asserted that God is necessary. It only shows that God is contingent on identity.

Your argument examines the theistic premise that he is necessary.

The argument doesn't say that God isn't uncaused. You're drawing false equivocations between contingency and the state of being caused.

See above, the very idea of contingency means that something is reliant on something outside itself, it is caused by it.

Even if necessary and absolute, still contingent on identity. My argument still holds if that's true.

If he is absolute he is dependent on nothing outside himself. The very idea of identity is just that he is absolute, that God is God. One cannot use reason, which is dependent on deducing causes from effects to utterly understand what is absolute. As far as I can see you have no argument, your just abusing reason.

 

[thedope]

Transcendental means beyond perception. Your argument, by definition, is not transcendental.
Reality is non local, nor is it remote. What is not real does not exist.

In any linguistic description the word good can be substituted for the word god, without altering the meaning of the formula. The word god, at it's root, means that which is invoked.

 

[Meow Mix]

But what is contingent must be caused by what is necessary or it would be necessary. What doesn't exist in its own right exists because it is caused by something else.

That doesn't mean that all necessary things cause all contingent things. Identity isn't causal; all things are contingent on it but it doesn't cause those things. Necessary things can be contingent on other necessary things, as I've said; and clearly being contingent on them doesn't mean they're caused by it if they themselves are necessary. You must break out of the idea that contingency = effect of a cause. It simply "ain't so," even if it is so sometimes.

But it is contingent because it is caused by something outside itself.

No, things which are contingent on other things aren't necessarily caused. Nor are they necessarily caused by all things they are contingent on.

Your argument examines the theistic premise that he is necessary.

Where? I wrote it and I don't see it.

See above, the very idea of contingency means that something is reliant on something outside itself, it is caused by it.

Untrue. If God is indeed necessarily existent, God can still be contingent on identity. Necessary things can be contingent on other necessary things. There's a problem if it's supposed that a necessary thing can be contingent on a contingent thing, of course, but that's not what's being said.

If he is absolute he is dependent on nothing outside himself. The very idea of identity is just that he is absolute, that God is God. One cannot use reason, which is dependent on deducing causes from effects to utterly understand what is absolute. As far as I can see you have no argument, your just abusing reason.

I'm not abusing reason at all; it appears as though you have some mistaken notions on necessity/contingency (at least in the modal context in which I've been using them).

 

[Meow Mix]

Transcendental means beyond perception. Your argument, by definition, is not transcendental.
Reality is non local, nor is it remote. What is not real does not exist.

In any linguistic description the word good can be substituted for the word god, without altering the meaning of the formula. The word god, at it's root, means that which is invoked.

"Transcendental" has a few definitions; I'm using Kant's definition: transcendental arguments are those concerned with a priori knowledge and argumentation.

What does it mean for "the word god ... means that which is invoked?"

 

[thedope]

"Transcendental" has a few definitions; I'm using Kant's definition: transcendental arguments are those concerned with a priori knowledge and argumentation.

Granted the word transcendental has a few conjugations. Using Kant's usage as an example of the definition of word transcendental is lost on me. I am not a student of philosophers. What is meant by a priori knowledge? The past exists only as an artifact of the present.

What does it mean for "the word god ... means that which is invoked?"

I am referring to the etymology of the word god. Old english derived from indo european. We always choose with a guide, that guide being deference to our own good depending on the parameters of that model. The word god and the word good arise from the same embodied sensation.

 

[Wessexman]

I'm guessing we can add Aristotle to those authors you are unfamiliar with.

That doesn't mean that all necessary things cause all contingent things. Identity isn't causal; all things are contingent on it but it doesn't cause those things. Necessary things can be contingent on other necessary things, as I've said; and clearly being contingent on them doesn't mean they're caused by it if they themselves are necessary. You must break out of the idea that contingency = effect of a cause. It simply "ain't so," even if it is so sometimes.

What does contingency mean? It means that something is reliant on something else, what does this mean it means that it is partly caused by this other thing. If my happiness is contingent on my income then it is caused or partly caused by my income. To talk of contingency is to talk of cause.

No, things which are contingent on other things aren't necessarily caused. Nor are they necessarily caused by all things they are contingent on.

The problem here is you are talking of different levels of causes. I'm the cause of my movement of my leg in one sense but I'm not the final or absolute cause because I did not utterly cause my leg to be in all it is. Something that is absolute and therefore completely necessary is contingent on nothing.

Where? I wrote it and I don't see it.

That is what you are arguing against.

I'm not abusing reason at all; it appears as though you have some mistaken notions on necessity/contingency (at least in the modal context in which I've been using them).

No, you aiming to try and utterly explain what is uncaused from causal thinking.

 

[thedope]

I'm guessing we can add Aristotle to those authors you are unfamiliar with.

I am simply not an academic. I tend my mind toward virtue in my own interests.

 

[Wessexman]

That comment was aimed at Meow Mix. Aristotle was a descent from Plato certainly, Plato "saw" the Universals whereas Aristotle had to deduce them. It has been said Plato looked towards heaven and Aristotle looked towards earth. But Aristotle was a part of the classical wisdom tradition, the Intellect and not reason was still at the bottom of his methodology though he was more interested in the use of reason and sensory, empirical evidence than those true philosopher who came before him. And he was a master of the use of reason.

 

[sojourner]

First, let me be clear by what is meant by a "transcendental argument for the nonexistence of God." This isn't an argument that defeats the existence of all possible gods, it's only aimed at a certain conception of God. If someone believes in a god that doesn't possess the qualities that this argument attacks, then it obviously doesn't apply.

Many conceptions of God suppose that God is the creator of all things external to God, that God has control over everything external to God, and furthermore that God isn't contingent on any higher transcendental "truths" than God. My argument (which amplifies the first published transcendental argument for the non-existence of God by Michael Martin) aims to show that God is not the creator of all things external to God, that God does not have control over everything external to God, and that God is contingent on higher transcendental "truths" than God, so that therefore any God attributed with those characteristics can't exist.

1) "God is the creator of all things external to God"

The Law of Identity describes a state of affairs in which something is itself, formulated symbolically as A = A. This state of affairs is both self-evident and incorrigible, which is what epistemologists would call "properly basic," meaning that it's necessarily true because even its negation assumes its efficacy.

For example, if I were to even hypothetically say, "The Law of Identity is false," to what am I referring? The Law of Identity. Is the Law of Identity the Law of Identity? Yes! To even attempt to doubt it, I have to assume its truth -- which is ultimately self-refuting. There are volumes on this subject, but let us just keep in mind for now that identity is incorrigibly true.

Is identity part of God? Well, it's true that God = God (identity), and that God must be either God or not-God (excluded middle), and that God can't be both God and not-God at the same time and in the same respect (noncontradiction), so clearly God exemplifies identity. This doesn't mean identity is part of God though, since every last one of us exemplifies identity.

For example, my name is Erin and I exemplify identity. Erin = Erin, but identity is external to me. Why would I say this? Because if I never existed, things would still be what they are (and they wouldn't be what they aren't). So identity isn't a part of me, it's just an attribute I possess.

If God didn't exist, would identity continue to exist? Yes. Let's say that the proposition "God exists" is represented by the character X.

Is ¬X = ¬X true? Yes, we must agree that it is. Clearly, identity would still function just fine in the absence of God just as it functions in the absence of Erin.

Thus, identity is external to God. This is important because it brings us to the next question: can God create identity?

Consider for a second the absurdity of God trying to create identity. How could God be God in the first place to create identity if identity weren't already inherently true?

If identity is external to God, and God can't create identity, then God didn't create all things external to God. This suggests there is a higher transcendental "truth" than God, and therefore God can't be the highest transcendental reality. (Out the window, all you old and dusty ontological arguments for God!)

2. "God has control over everything external to God"

Does God have control over identity? Even some of the most die-hard theologians would argue that God doesn't. Let's ignore for a second the bizarre cart-before-the-horse ramifications of God controling a higher transcendental "truth" than God and ask:

Can God create a square that is a circle at the same time and in the same respect?
Can God exist and not-exist at the same time and in the same respect?
Can God be absolutely benevolent and absolutely malevolent at the same time and in the same respect?

I think we would have some intersting thinkers on our hands, indeed, if they answered yes to either of these questions.

Furthermore, many theists argue that it's "against God's nature" to be malevolent. For these folks in particular: do you see how saying that God is unable to do something "because of his nature" suggests that God conforms to higher transcendental truths which are outside of the control of God?

Since God is unable to change God's own nature, or to actualize logical contradictions, God is not able to controll all things external to God.

3) "God isn't contingent on any higher transcendental truths"

As I've argued from (1) and (2), this must clearly be the case. God is contingent on higher transcendental states of affairs.

Now this really raises some tough ramifications. For one, any kind of ontological argument for the existence of God that relies on God being "that which nothing greater can be conceived" fail immediately and inherently. This is the most serious consequence of this line of argument, and where I rest my case against such arguments.

Secondly, the three statements that I tackled can't be said to be true of any god. This is far less serious, since any rational theist can go right on believing in a god that's contingent on higher transcendental truths.

However, this really raises the most hair-raising question: if God wasn't necessary to cause identity, then we have at least one non-God thing that exists independently of God's creation that even theists must logically admit given the argument is sound. There goes theistic arguments that God is necessary to explain any non-God existence at all! While it doesn't follow from the argument, it does set the stage for the question: why should we assume the existence of the material universe must be explained as "created" or "beginning" in the first place?

You decide.

------------------------
EDIT: Oh yeah, PS. I forgot to mention that this argument also undercuts the basis for the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. Whoops! Tiny oversight.

1) If God exists, the universe has the identity of being God's creation. If God does not exist, then that identity shifts. It cannot be "God's creation" if God does not exist. Therefore, identity is internal, and not external, to God. (BTW, since we are created in God's image, identity is also internal to us. If you did not exist, then your father cannot be "Erin's Dad.)

2) If God is Creator, then God has a design for that creation, the parameters of which God chose. Since we are part of that creation, we cannot stand outside of it in order to make the apprehension you posit here.

3) God isn't contingent upon any higher transcendental truths. God is contingent upon God's very Being.

 

[Meow Mix]

Granted the word transcendental has a few conjugations. Using Kant's usage as an example of the definition of word transcendental is lost on me. I am not a student of philosophers. What is meant by a priori knowledge? The past exists only as an artifact of the present.

A priori knowledge is that which you can know without having experience... for instance you've never experienced a married bachelor but you know that they can't exist by definition. It's used in contrast to a posteriori knowledge such as "atoms exist," a proposition that you have to have experience and do some searching for to come to know.

I am referring to the etymology of the word god. Old english derived from indo european. We always choose with a guide, that guide being deference to our own good depending on the parameters of that model. The word god and the word good arise from the same embodied sensation.

Oh. That's interesting to know, but I don't see how that really helps things in terms of what we can know exists or not.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm guessing we can add Aristotle to those authors you are unfamiliar with.

I've never directly read Aristotle, that's for sure. I'm familiar with some of his ideas though, and it's ultimately irrelevant whether I've read this-or-that as long as I understand the relevant metaphysics; which I do. What I espouse stands or falls on its own, regardless of whether it's stood directly upon the shoulders of giants or not.

Honestly I've found a lot of difficulty reading the ancients' work directly. I have quasi-diagnosed ADHD (I was found to probably have it, but was instead just placed in accelerated/gifted courses in HS with the diagnosis that I was just "bored") and anything that's remotely dry quickly bores me... have tried to struggle through several of Plato's works, Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," and so on (just some examples) and ended up skimming and skimming...

I just can't do it. It bores the hell out of me. I clearly love the subject but it can't keep my attention with the way they used to write it*. I've learned most of the ancients' ideas by proxy and through my own exploration (too often I've thought of ideas only to find that this-or-that person's already espoused it). I'm impressed by your knowledge of ancient philosophers, but I don't think that philosophy is a "who knows about what who said" sort of thing. Ideas stand or fall on their own.

(* -- I don't have reading comprehension problems; it's not that their more eloquent method of writing confuses me or anything... it just admittedly takes longer to digest and I just don't have the patience to do it!)

What does contingency mean? It means that something is reliant on something else, what does this mean it means that it is partly caused by this other thing. If my happiness is contingent on my income then it is caused or partly caused by my income. To talk of contingency is to talk of cause.

In a modal sense contingency just means that it could have been otherwise. Otherwise contingency means something relies on something else to exist; but reliance doesn't mean causation. Causation is more active than the relationship between identity and things that exist; yet things that exist couldn't exist without identity.

Not a perfect analogy, but squares couldn't exist without rectangles but rectangles certainly don't cause the existence of squares. (For readers that don't know, squares are a type of rectangle).

The problem here is you are talking of different levels of causes. I'm the cause of my movement of my leg in one sense but I'm not the final or absolute cause because I did not utterly cause my leg to be in all it is. Something that is absolute and therefore completely necessary is contingent on nothing.

Not so. There is no contradiction in the concept that identity is necessary, God is necessary, but God is contingent on identity. Please tell me where the fault is there. Necessary things can be contingent on other necessary things without being ontologically contingent themselves; you're still applying this false notion of "effect of a cause" to contingency.

Not all contingency relationships are cause/effect relationships, though indeed some are. In the same sense, not all rectangles are squares, though indeed some are.

 

[thedope]

A priori knowledge is that which you can know without having experience... for instance you've never experienced a married bachelor but you know that they can't exist by definition. It's used in contrast to a posteriori knowledge such as "atoms exist," a proposition that you have to have experience and do some searching for to come to know..

This seems muddled to me. Knowledge is, being shared, regardless.

Oh. That's interesting to know, but I don't see how that really helps things in terms of what we can know exists or not.

Every word is a symbol representing an origin in an embodied sensation. "God" exists, shall I say it, by definition.

 

[Mister Emu]

It doesn't take a mind existing for it still to be true that things are the way they are, and that all of mathematics follows from that.

But we are not talking about things being the way they are, rather things being quite different.

Two is defined by the existence of multiple things, whether conceptual or otherwise. Perhaps it is a failing of mine, but I cannot define two without recourse to, at least, the concept of one thing and another thing. To me, this means the two is contingent upon such.

Yeah, which equates to God adhering to a higher transcendental truth. See?

Which would be?

 

[Wessexman]

In a modal sense contingency just means that it could have been otherwise. Otherwise contingency means something relies on something else to exist; but reliance doesn't mean causation. Causation is more active than the relationship between identity and things that exist; yet things that exist couldn't exist without identity.

Not so. There is no contradiction in the concept that identity is necessary, God is necessary, but God is contingent on identity. Please tell me where the fault is there. Necessary things can be contingent on other necessary things without being ontologically contingent themselves; you're still applying this false notion of "effect of a cause" to contingency.

It is important to remember that if one says God is everything then in a sense one has an intellectual dualism when looking at contingent objects. On the one hand they are caused by God and contingent but they're still God and therefore absolute. This is again stretching reason to its limits. But to put it simply, for something that exists one thing that makes it what it is, is identity but that is not all that makes it so as you say. So there are other factors, other causes. In theistic metaphysics it is God which is all these causes, he is the final cause, the absolute, that which all these causes have in common, their essence. Of course reason cannot fully define this absolute because it deduces causes from effects, as I keep saying. Your misunderstanding of causality and contingency/necessary is because your always trying to examine lesser causes.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is important to remember that if one says God is everything then in a sense one has an intellectual dualism when looking at contingent objects. On the one hand they are caused by God and contingent but they're still God and therefore absolute. This is again stretching reason to its limits. But to put it simply, for something that exists one thing that makes it what it is, is identity but that is not all that makes it so as you say. So there are other factors, other causes. In theistic metaphysics it is God which is all these causes, he is the final cause, the absolute, that which all these causes have in common, their essence. Of course reason cannot fully define this absolute because it deduces causes from effects, as I keep saying. Your misunderstanding of causality and contingency/necessary is because your always trying to examine lesser causes.

I don't have a misunderstanding of causality and contingency -- what's happening is you're making an unjustified assertion, as we've sort of been going back and forth on in the other thread.

It's sort of to the point now where you really need to justify your assertion that identity "is" God in order for your points here or there to have any relevance.

Ancient philosophy, modern philosophy -- when has it ever been appropriate to argue with unjustified, non-evident, non-incorrigible assertions as if they had any weight to throw around?

When I read my own statements they sound rude and insulting but please understand they aren't intended that way. I'm very much enjoying your company in this conversation!

 

[Wessexman]

The problem is I feel just the reverse. I feel that I have utterly debunked your argument and that you've therefore changed tacts and moved onto to a different argument. Your argument does not show that God, or the One or the Tao is necessarily contingent or conditioned or caused by something outside him. I never argued that God exists in this thread. I'm struggling to see how your argument is now different to simply saying I haven't proved God exists.

 

[Meow Mix]

The problem is I feel just the reverse. I feel that I have utterly debunked your argument and that you've therefore changed tacts and moved onto to a different argument. Your argument does not show that God, or the One or the Tao is necessarily contingent or conditioned or caused by something outside him. I never argued that God exists in this thread. I'm struggling to see how your argument is now different to simply saying I haven't proved God exists.

I can appreciate this problem... I'd guess that a lot of arguments are more complicated than they have to be due to misperceptions of the opposing mindset. I could utterly be misunderstanding you and might not know it until just the right nuance is said, and so too could the reverse be true.

I feel I've answered this same question though on the other thread, and would just direct you there to that response so I don't end up repeating myself too much. In a nutshell, I haven't "changed tacts," it's that my argument was never geared towards someone of your belief but once you objected to it (assuming that it was) I became curious about your response and so got into it from there.

Edit: is "misperception" even a word? Maybe I meant misconception...

 

[Wessexman]

Well I don't think you originally completely understood the nuances of the different perspectives on theism but I do agree your argument, even if it is a bit too rationalist(in the negative sense of overusing reason and ignoring its limits and proper place.) for my tastes, is a good one against those theists you are referring to who delineate between God and the universe.