The Argument for the Nonexistence of God

The argument I am referring to throughout can be found at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html.

The following is an argument against the “transcendental argument for the non-existence of God” (TANG).

The primary problem with the TANG argument is that Dr. Martin begins his discussion several logical steps after those presenting the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) have presented their case and sat down.

The TAG argument says that everything we think, do, and say presupposes the Christian God. What this means is that to even talk about logic, science, and morality presupposes God. Logic would not be logic, science would not be science, morality makes no sense in a world where the Christian God is not God.

Logic
Dr. Martin’s begins the first section of his argument by saying, “Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true.” But, from where did logic come? How can logic think at all? Who says logic presupposes its principles are true? In a world without God, or in a world with a god that is not the Christian God, there is no reason to believe anything is true or will be true tomorrow (whatever we mean by truth or error, which may change in 30 seconds).

The Christian says we can talk about the truth of the logical principles because they are expressions of God, who is logical, and we know that they will still be true tomorrow because the Christian God does not change. So, logic will still be true now, 30 seconds from now, three thousand years from now ad infinitum.

The problem with starting where Dr. Martin starts is that he does not begin with the source of logic, as the TAG argument does, but assumes logic and goes from there. Dr. Martin hasn’t gone far enough back in the discussion.

Another mistake Dr. Martin makes is that he thinks TAG teaches that God created logic. This is not true; instead it teaches that logic is a characteristic or attribute of God, who created mankind in his image. This, among many other things, means means people can know and use logic to communicate with one another.

Dr. Martin is correct in the whole rest of his argument about logic. But since the first several steps don’t apply, the rest of his argument is moot.

Science
In his section on science, Dr. Martin assumes things that he is supposed to be proving. For example, he assumes the world is the way it is, which God has created to be this way, without realizing the presuppositions on which he is standing. Where did science come from? Who says it has laws? Where do the laws come from? Who enforces those laws? The thing to ask according to the TANG argument is, “What would science look like if there were no Christian God?” The things we observe in science only repeat because that’s the way God made the world. It is an expression of who God is: beautiful, consistent, orderly, logical, etc. However, because God made the world and makes things appear to happen the same way over and over again, we label them laws (the laws of science). Moreover, in the world, miracles happen. The world in which the God of Christianity doesn’t exist would not have laws at all. Nothing would be consistent nor could anything be expected to repeat itself, and so nothing would be a law. Miracles only make sense when there are principles on which people count enough to notice if there is a “violation” of a given one. Without the God of Christianity, everything would be out of order, so nothing would be unexpected.

Again, in a transcendental argument, the goal is to prove or show why science exists or why we assume science exists in a world where the Christian God does not exist. This means we can assume that science exists, but must show that it can exist in a world where the Christian God does not. Dr. Martin has assumed science, but has not shown in any way whatever that we could have what we have without the Christian God having given it to us.

Morality
Dr. Martin goes on to assert something called “objective morality.” Where did that come from? If the God of Christianity does not exist, how can anyone talk about “objective” anything? Even “morality” is a silly concept. Acknowledging that morality exists assumes that God exists. Again, Dr. Martin has jumped ahead of what he’s trying to prove. The TAG argument says that right and wrong exist. We know that; we see it all the time. The TAG argument goes on to say that this morality would/could only exist in a world that the Christian God created. It exists, and therefore God exists.

What Dr. Martin needs to do is to explain how there can be “objective morality” in a world that exists independently from the Christian God. Instead Dr. Martin assumes morality, therefore using God’s created world to try to prove that God does not exist.

One last point that I think is somewhat funny. Dr. Martin says, “On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover, there is no rational way to reconcile these differences.” But the TAG argument takes into account the fact that false gods and false religions exist and that false gods try to control morality. TAG only says the world we live in can only be this way if the God of Christianity exists and created it this way. An appeal to various religions proves TAG; it does not disprove it. The problem is that Dr. Martin’s position is in the same grouping as the Mormons and Islam. It is a competing god trying to use the world God created to “have it its way,” but to do so, assumes and uses God’s world.

You can also see Dr. John Frame’s argument with Dr. Martin at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/

Also Doug Jones carried on a debate on this subject. You can find it here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/jones-parsons-martin/

Finally, you can read the debate Douglas Wilson had with Dr. Theodore Drange here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-wilson/index.shtml