TAG (Transcendental Argument for God)

[JJFinch]

Any thoughts on the TAG?

The simple form of the argument is that God is the necessary precondition for certain transcendental categories (logic is a typical example). Part of the argument is that universals cannot be reduced to particulars (e.g. matter), then that the ontological basis of such things is a mind (omniscient) as no other way is possible (this is based on Jay Dyer's TAG defences, Greg Bahnsen was an earlier proponent)

The conception of 'God' (i.e. the omniscient mind) could vary here, and many would probably input M@L. Thought it might be worth thinking about

[Soul_of_Shu]

If nothing else, this suggested topic gives us a measurement of where the participation level of the forum is at, and how many members out of 318 are still paying some occasional attention, if only as silent lurkers. In 7 weeks, zero replies and 32 views, average less than one per day. The audience seems to be dwindling evermore. Maybe soon it won't even need a mod.

[AshvinP]

Any thoughts on the TAG?

The simple form of the argument is that God is the necessary precondition for certain transcendental categories (logic is a typical example). Part of the argument is that universals cannot be reduced to particulars (e.g. matter), then that the ontological basis of such things is a mind (omniscient) as no other way is possible (this is based on Jay Dyer's TAG defences, Greg Bahnsen was an earlier proponent)

The conception of 'God' (i.e. the omniscient mind) could vary here, and many would probably input M@L. Thought it might be worth thinking about

The problem is when we conflate conceptualization with "proof" or genuine understanding of our higher true, beautiful, and good Ideals, which we tend to lump into one abstract entity with the label of "God", "Consciousness", "Energy", "Idea","Will/MAL", "Nothingness", etc.

With idealism, there is something it is like to experience MAL, God, etc. from the perspectives within its rich, archetypal depth structure. We are not on the 'other side' of this experiential perspective - there is no hard wall separating us into "alters" with personal bubbles of consciousness that must model 'reality-in-itself' (this latter concept is a product of Kantian/Schop dualism). Our conceptualization can only be a symbol pointing to this higher experience of MAL's inner perspectives, like the words I am writing can only be symbols to you of the rich meaning that I am experiencing from my inner perspective and trying to convey with the words. The word-concepts themselves cannot be configured in any way for you to completely grasp that meaningful perspective. They cannot "prove" that meaning to you, only point in its general direction. In fact, with modern technology, we are even coming to the point where my words may not "prove" there is any inner perspective behind the words you are perceiving, only a programmed algorithm.

So we should sense the pointlessness of these various "arguments" for God. Often we are engaging them to simply fuel our own desire to be heard and have an opinion and feel secure in that opinion from the perspective of others who "agree" with us, not to actually reach shared understanding of how to reach our highest Ideals. We get this former approach from modern analytic philosophy to religious fundamentalism (with all its apologetic arguments) and mysticism. The inner experience of whatever in our estimation is equivalent to 'God' has been sacrificed for the convenience and pleasure of endless abstract speculation. We fail to realize something much, much more profound is right at our fingertips, because we have been mentally conditioned not to ever look for it, but rather resign to the fact that it remains remote from us in some entirely separate realm of existence until death. At best, we feel our own vague mystical experiences are the highest we can attain towards the Divine. Until we sense how illogical and unnecessary this attitude is, we are simply exchanging abstract arguments for our own pleasure and we aren't actually integrating our experience with the Divine in the process.

[lorenzop]

Here I agree with Ashwin - a 'proof' is merely a state of mind, where the mind is temporarily satisfied with a thought or argument. In addition, a 'proof of God' must has to be compelling, or as Ashwin suggests "genuine understanding of our higher true, beautiful, and good Ideals".
We don't bow before God as a show of devotion or respect, we bow because our knees give out, it's an honest response to a way of being present in the world, to a way of seeing, hearing, touching, etc.