--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God
>
> The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God (also called 
> TANG) was first explicitly formulated by Michael Martin in a 1996 
> article in New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist [1].
...
>Furthermore, there is conflict amongst religious people about 
> what God's will actually consists of, and there seems to be no way to 
> rationally reconcile them (assuming the equal standing of all claims 
> to divine inspiration). With these two premises, the argument 
> concludes that upholding objective morality proves that the Christian 
> worldview is false.

Though that is quite different from a valid Transcendental argument
for the non-existence of God. If an excepetion is found, the proof is
invalid.

Its reasonable to hypothesize that if God exists, IT gave humanity the
ability to investigate and reason, to figure out what works and what
does not in any given age, climate, geography, state of technological,
cultural, human rights, self-rule and economic development. Because
its self-evident (:)) that if god exists, IT was smart enough to know
that optimal rules of society, economy, conduct, etc will  differ as
those factors differ. (I mean like EVEN Ifigured it out so God must have.)

As a quick aside, MMY said climate and geography are the two dominant
differentiating factors for all cultures and religions. (Desert
religions, mountain religions, etc).

So  if God gave humanity the tools to figure it out, and adaptively
learn and modify, and did not give explicit rules to follow, then
martin's argument is not germane, and it does not prove the
non-exsistance of God. It may simply indicate that current religions
are internally inconsistant and thus untrue as a whole.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'




SPONSORED LINKS
Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to