The transadental arguement

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Randomhero1982's picture
The transadental arguement

I shared this earlier and I though it may be interesting to my fellow primates on here...

This is a video on youtube of Alex Malpass taking on Apologist Matt Slick and his transadental arguement.

Matt Slick doesn't even get the first premise correct when he calls it a true dichotomy...

Hope some of you find this as illuminating as I did.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Flamenca's picture
Oh, man, almost 3 hours of

Oh, man, almost 3 hours of video... are you trying to kill us? We only have one life :P

Seriously, thanks.

Randomhero1982's picture
It is worth to see the

It is worth to see the massive flaws!

Matt Slick is a Christian apologist who like most of his cohorts relies on logic and philosophy to prove god, but Alex Malpass is brilliant and qualified in those fields and takes apart the arguement.

Essential the arguement from Matt Slick which is presented as a disjunctive syllogism, goes as follows;

Premise 1 - God (most often God is defined as the supreme entity found in Christianity and is in this case), is a necessary precondition for logic and morality.

Premise 2 - People know things (have logical, and moral intuitions).

Conclusion - Therefore, God exists

Firstly the opening premise is not a dichotomy as Matt Slick believes it to be, this is because it is not exhaustive of the options such other gods of Judaism, Norse etc...

Matt Slick then breaks it down to a new premise of...


The problem then becomes that when in premise 2 where you negate one option, you simply destroy the arguement, for example...

P2 - Not GOD
P3 - GOD

That creates a trivial arguement where you're essentially just saying P = P

P2 - Not NOT GOD

This creates the fallacy of begging the question because your conclusion is the second premise, which leaves premise one pointless.

Anyways, I think that very roughly sums up Alex malpass's response, if you watch the video he beautiful breaks it down even for someone with very little knowledge of logic to follow and understand.

At the same time, Matt Slick squirming around unable to answer this is a beautiful sight.

Flamenca's picture
I'm watching the video, but

I'm watching the video, but since I'm experiencing some difficulties when it comes to follow the logical arguments (not Malpass fault, but it's very difficult for me to follow logical propositions in other language that's not my own), I've search for more explanations and I've found this post called "Malpass for dummies:Why Matt Slick’s “TAG” is Dead", and I think it's pretty clarifying:

Randomhero1982's picture
That is on point indeed...

That is on point indeed... and all other arguments using logic and philosophy thay I've seen so far, including on here... essentially follow the same patterns.

Flamenca's picture
Matt Slick then breaks it

Matt Slick then breaks it down to a new premise of...

Now that I understand it better, after reading what I linked, I'd like to point this out, because this was the premise that made me understand what Malpass was talking about. Matt Slick upholds that:

1. God is a necessary precondition for the intelligibility of logic.
2. Logic is intelligible.
3. Therefore God exists.

According to that, only God could account for the laws of logic, supporting for the necessary precondition of intelligibility of logic, that he doesn't prove that there could not be another account for it.

And for this, I like how Malpass puts it on layman's terms:

"Why should I think that if I can’t account for the laws of logic, God must exist?”

And later on he gives a classical Russell's argument for explaining Stick's fallacy:

1. The present King of France is bald or not bald (so he has hair).
2. The present King of France is not bald.
3. Therefore he has hair.

It ignores the fact that the King of France doesn't exist, since France is a Republic.

I think this example is very enlightening.

Thank you very much for the video link. It made me refresh my old memories of how logic laws work and meditate on the question for several hours.

Malpass rocks even though he's British xD

Randomhero1982's picture
The king of France section

The king of France section was brilliant

bevis0405's picture
I was impressed with the

I was impressed with the depth of research that went into this piece.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.