Transcendental argument for God

[cornelius386]

I've been hearing this argument recently.  It appears to be in vogue with Christian apologists these days.  I've heard the claim that logic, the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes are not meaningful without belief in the Christian God as the source of these things.  I've been thinking about this argument.  I want to share some of my thoughts and get your feedback.

Is it correct for Christian apologists to claim that logic and the uniformity of nature require explanation?  I know that logic cannot be proven.  Any proof for logic will depend on logic.  The same goes for the uniformity of nature.  Proofs for it will depend on inductive reasoning which presupposes the uniformity of nature.  So, is it philosophical legitimate to consider logic and the uniformity of nature to be self-evident and requiring no explanation?

Can positing a god provide a satisfying explanation for logic and the uniformity of nature?  The Christian believes that logic exists because his God is rational and the Creator of all.  But how can such a rational god exist?  Does the existence of such a god require an explanation?  If the Christian says 'no' then has he explained the existence of logic?  Is it legit to explain logic by appealing to a god whose existence cannot be explained?  Positing such a god appears unnecessary.

Morality is a sticky issue with me.  Maybe I'm ignorant but I tend to believe that there is no absolute morality.  As intelligent beings we have to decide for ourselves what is morally right or wrong.  Our species has an evolutionary history that guides us.  Culture and environment are also factors.

[SteveS]

Hey cornelius, here's my two cents:

I feel that logic is self-evident.  I have a worldview that is heavily influenced by objectivism, so I will accept what I objectively view in the world.  If the world is uniform, then it is uniform.  That's just the way it is.  Same with logic --- if it makes sense, then it makes sense.  No god concepts are required to understand that logic makes sense.

My biggest objection to the idea that uniformity requires a non-natural explanation is that there seems to be a presupposition that the natural world would "naturally" be non-uniform.  Why?  Without knowing anything about nature, would nature be uniform or non-uniform?  The Christians seem to think "non-uniform" is a foregone conclusion, but based on what reasoning or what evidence or what observation?  This is what I mean.  Without knowing anything about nature, an objective individual looks at the world and sees what he sees - uniformity.  So now, I can say that I know that nature possess a certain uniformity.  I know this because I have sensory perception that has led me to this conclusion.  I looked at nature, and therefore learned about it.  This is all I can say that I know about it.  So I just accept the uniformity of nature as an objectively true observation - this is a characteristic of nature.  Why does this need an explanation?  Why would the world not be uniform naturally?  If the world would "naturally" be non-uniform, and it is god that made it uniform, then is nature unnatural?  This starts to seem ridiculous to me.

[cornelius386]

Another thought:

Is not logic entailed by the nature of existence?  To exist is to exist as something.  To be something means to have a determinate set of attributes.  Is this not the basis for the law of identity?  The other laws of logic follow from this most basic law.

The uniformity of nature can exist because nature exhibits order.  Cause and effect is the basis for order in nature.  Because things exist with a determinate set of attributes makes cause and effect possible.  Thus it's reasonable to believe in the uniformity of nature.

[Smarmy Of One]

Logic and order only exist through human perspective. The universe would continue to exist without humans. Therefore logic and order are irrelevant.  

[cornelius386]

Final thought:

The bottom line with the TAG is that it doesn't deliver what it promises.  It just makes the problem worse.  Its proponents claim it provides a basis for logic, the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes.  But the question arises:  what accounts for the existence of such a god?  Positing a god is not a valid explanation for anything because now you have to explain the existence of this god.  The Christian who claims that his god's existence requires no explanation is being inconsistent.  He demands an explanation for the existence of logic but not for his god.

[OldGit]

Logic and order only exist through human perspective. The universe would continue to exist without humans. Therefore logic and order are irrelevant.  

And Cornelius is right: it comes down to dear old Occam and his razor, again

[Loffler]

No, that argument is hogwash. It's not even an argument. It's an engine of nonsense fueled by shovelfuls of bullshit wishful thinking.