Hi AA,

Brady wrote in a previous post: The cosmological argument and the transcendental argument are very different. The fact that they both may use elements of a disjunctive syllogism does not make them the same.

AA replied: I did not say the arguments were the same; I said they were similar: they have the same form and they contain the same fallacies. They are both unconvincing.

You say they have the same form and because of that they have the same fallacies. But, to date you have not listed any formal fallacies. All your of the fallacies you have alleged are informal fallacies. And some of these you have recanted: “I have read that paper. It is true that you show the claim of special pleading is false.”

So, what formal fallacy does the transcendental argument commit?

Brady wrote in a previous post: As for the transcendental argument, where is the special pleading? The same thing is asked for both positions. Does the cosmology have the elements needed to produce an epistemology?

AA replied: Your answer to this question, as far as I can tell, is to take the proposition of "god" (PG) and to derive somehow the proposition of correspondence (PC). A non theist might assert PC without PG and thereby obtain CCE. You cannot dispute this without either contradicting yourself, special pleading or begging the question.

I simply point out the in the theistic cosmology God provides the jumpstart need to get to an epistemology. The theistic cosmology says that God intended to create a world meant to be known and creature meant to know it. This provides the basis for the terms we spoke of earlier; i.e. I exist, the world around me exists and I can know the relation between the two.

The atheistic cosmologies have no such jumpstart. All we get is the universe exists, i.e. there is only matter in motion and the laws of physics. Given that, you can’t even get to a distinction between animate and inanimate. Given this cosmology everything is necessarily inanimate; some matter is just more complex than others. If you can’t get to animate, you will never get to sentient. If you can’t get to sentient, you can’t get to knowledge.

So, now we ask the question, is there knowledge? If your answer is yes, then the atheist cosmology must be false. This is a simple conditional:

If the atheist cosmology is true, then there is no knowledge.    {Conditional statement}

Knowledge exists [i.e. ~ (no knowledge)]                 {the impossibility of the contrary}

Therefore, the atheist cosmology is false.                                          {Modus Tolens}

Perhaps you would like to attack the premise that Knowledge exists? Let’s look at that:

The statement “knowledge exists” is a universal affirmative statement.

The statement “knowledge does not exist” is a universal negative statement.

Both universal affirmative and universal negative statements are assertions of knowledge. Therefore, for someone to make either statement is to assert some knowledge. Therefore, the assertion that there is no knowledge is an assertion of knowledge. So, the universal negative assertion self stultifies and is necessarily false.

Let’s continue on. You say that a non-theist might assert correspondence without asserting God. In fact most do. But the assertion does not make it true, nor does it provide the needed elements that allow one to get to correspondence. Bold assertion is just that, bold assertion. Let the non-theist show how he gets from the elements of his cosmology to knowledge. Simply saying it is so, doesn’t cut it.

You will notice that in the above there is no contradiction of my position, no special pleading and no petito principii.

But perhaps I am wrong. Why don’t you show everyone how to get to knowledge from the atheist cosmology without mere assertions?

Brady wrote in a previous post: What word is being equivocated?

AA replied: You are equivocating with the word "god". The fallacy of equivocation is to use the same word with two different meanings. Even supposing that you have proved a "first cause" (in the cosmological argument) or a "first justification" (in the epistemic argument) you have not proved any genocidal theistic "god". That you call these arguments "proofs of god" (i.e. your choice of "god") is an equivocation.

What are you talking about? I have only and consistently used the term God to describe an Original Being that intentionally created a world meant to be known and creatures meant to know it; show where I have used it any other way. The details on the personal traits of God are really meaningless here. The basic fact is, it is not a “first justification argument;” it is the “atheist has no possible justification argument.” No matter what you want to say about God, no matter how pejorative you want to be, the atheistic cosmology is still untenable.

Brady wrote: But, we know to begin with that there is no atheist cosmology that can produce an epistemology. So, your attempt to accept the theory of correspondence without a theistic cosmology is actually irrational.

AA wrote: Again you are begging the question, even after I have described a non theistic basis for epistemology.

Again, you have not given a basis for anything; you have made a mere assertion. In logic assertions must be proven. In other words an assertion is not a conclusion. So prove that your assertion is true.

Who here is begging the question? The question here is how do we get to knowledge? Your answer, “we assume it!” When you assume the question at hand, you are begging the question.

Brady wrote: But, Hume has already shown that coming from an atheistic cosmology, none of these can be asserted with confidence.

AA wrote: Hume was reasoning within a non theistic epistemology with an empty a priori set; he was not reasoning within all possible non theistic epistemologies. In particular, a non theistic Foundationalist epistemology that assumes the proposition of correspondence is outside the scope of Hume's argument.

How is this different from Hume? Hume admits that he can find no basis for correspondence and he says so. You can find no basis for it, so you just assume it. Either way, there is no basis for it from an atheist worldview. If I am wrong, show the basis for it.

Brady wrote: If this is not your meaning, then show how logic and your arguments have meaning from any atheistic worldview and I will stop making the claims you don’t like. Until then, you will continue to hear them.

AA wrote: A non theistic Foundationalist may assume that logic has meaning, just as you do, but without the mythological back story. I expect that you will ignore this, also.

The difference is that the atheistic cosmologies contradict the fideistic assumption of correspondence; whereas, the theist cosmology leads to the theist’s conclusion of correspondence. So, if the atheist’s assumption of correspondence is right, his cosmology is necessarily wrong. If the atheist’s cosmology is right, his assumption of correspondence is necessarily wrong.

Brady wrote: What I mean by a coherent and consistent epistemology is one that does not contradict the cosmological position it is based upon. If there is a contradiction between these two then one of them is necessarily false (both may be false, but at least one of them is false, necessarily). This is a basic indirect derivation.

AA wrote: That's it?!? An epistemology is CCE if and only if it produces no contradictions?!? You are asserting that only genocidal theism satisfies this definition of CCE?!?

It seems to me that if it produces a contradiction, then the epistemology would be neither coherent nor consistent, by definition. Yes, I am asserting that only the theistic cosmology is the only on that has the elements to produce a coherent and consistent epistemology. If you disagree, it should be quite easy to prove me wrong: simply show how any other cosmology provides the elements needed to get to knowledge without contradiction.

Regards,

Brady