Saturday, May 23, 2009

Presenting SATAN the Simply Awesome Transcendental Argument for the Non existence of god.

I posted this to Richard Dawkins forum where he asked for possible counters to the transcendental argument for the existence of God. I have been playing with this for a while. This is the simplest most straightforward one I could achieve. It declares that the presupposition of an interventionist God precludes any possibility of logic or reason.

Here it is.

If there were an omnipotent being in charge of the universe then natural laws and logical causality would be arbitrary and subject to its whims. In a universe so governed there would be no truth and no standards upon which logical thought could be based.

The only universe in which a logical chain of cause and effect is possible, is one in which the laws governing that universe are themselves the framework upon which the universe rests. This is precisely the universe described by non theistic science.

When one says that the universe is subject to a God, they deny that there is any possibility of knowledge, logic, or fact. Theistic people must assume that there are no truths or logic, and therefore they can not claim any knowledge without basing it upon the standards belonging to the atheistic perspective.

I would also add that even the attempts by theists to demonstrate the existence of their god are only possible using the concepts of truth and evidence which are only possible in the absence of God.

This becomes axiomatic. If there were a God then there would be no standard of logic upon which I could argue against it's existence. Since I do make such an argument there is no God.


Kerri Love said...

LOL seems logical, but who'd believe it? :P

Ryk said...

No one with any sense, but a lot of people use the opposite one to support the existence of God and they think it is just great.:)

Ryk said...

I have to apologize to Michael Martin. This is for the most part his argument. I don't recall having read his before making mine but I can not be sure. I have read a lot of this stuff. Anyway I just found it and he did it first. So all the credit goes to him. So I apologize for this accidental plagiarism. Either great minds think alike or he so impressed me I unconsciously adopted his argument either way it is meant as a compliment.