Kant's Transcendental Argument For God: logical or not?

I think it is important that before I begin I explain to the readers that the case for the Christian God is cumulative, you have to understand many key points in order to come to the conclusion that Jesus is Lord. This argument does not argue that the Christian God exist but rather that a mind transcendent to this world exist.

Logical Absolutes - Necessary truths that exist in all possible worlds, such as the Law of Non-contradiction and the Law of Identity.

Premise 1: Logical Absolutes exist.

Premise 2: Logical Absolutes are conceptual.

Premise 3: Concepts exist in the mind, they are mental.

Premise 4: Logical absolutes would exist even if our minds did not.

Premise 5: Therefore, logical absolutes are transcendent

Premise 6: Since logical absolutes are transcendent and conceptual they must exist in a transcendent mind.

Premise 7: This transcendent mind is what we recognize as God.

I personally don't see anything logically incoherent about the logic here. It starts from the idea that logic exist and works to the idea that a logic is evidence for the existence of a transcendent mind. The only thing I see one could say is that they do not believe some of the premises are logically sound. I personally think they are sound. Lets here it guys what issues do you see?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Matt Slicks argument?

Premise 6: Since logical absolutes are transcendent and conceptual they must exist in a transcendent mind.

You need to explain why they must exist in a transcendent mind.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Premise 5 seems faulty: logical absolutes MIGHT be transcendent, because Premise 4 didn't deny that they MIGHT be seen by our minds, too. Therefore, possible for every thinking brain.

a reply to: Prezbo369
That's not the weak point, the weak point comes earlier.
Premise 6 follows from the others;
If the Logical Absolute CANNOT exist outside the mind, and the Logical Absolute MUST exist, then there MUST be a mind which contains it.

I think the real weak point is Premise 2. If the Logical Absolute, being a Necessary Truth, is a state-of-affairs before being a concept, then it can exist outside any mind. Then the rest of the argument breaks down.

a reply to: Prezbo369

No this is Kant's version, and I'll refer you to premise 2 and 3. Your question is about six which is derived from premise 2 and 3.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Premise 5 seems faulty: logical absolutes MIGHT be transcendent, because Premise 4 didn't deny that they MIGHT be seen by our minds, too. Therefore, possible for every thinking brain.

I fail to see why you think it changes to might be just because we can see them too? We couldn't even be having this discussion if we couldn't recognize them. The premise is arguing that they transcend human existence, so it doesn't really matter if humans can see them what matters is humans don't have to exist for logical absolutes to exist.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Define State-of-Affairs for me please.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
Something which exists objectively, outside the mind.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I think maybe we are defining necessary differently . . necessary means that something exists in all possible worlds but it doesn't mean that they cannot be conceptual in nature. From my understanding in philosophy a state of affairs is a way the actual world must be in order to make some given proposition about the actual world true. So Logical Absolutes must be conceptual. Are you arguing that because they are necessary truths they can't be conceptual? If so I don't see how that logic follows seems non-sequitur.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
No, I am arguing that a necessary truth CAN be non-conceptual. It may simply "be the case".
For example, the laws of gravity would still be true whether a mind was containing them or not.

a reply to: DISRAELI

No, I am arguing that a necessary truth CAN be non-conceptual. It may simply "be the case".
For example, the laws of gravity would still be true whether a mind was containing them or not.

I would agree that it is possible for a necessary truth to be non-conceptual, but I don't see how that fact means that logical absolutes are not conceptual in nature. Something is itself is a concept. It is not a physical entity, but rather a description of a pattern among physical entities. That pattern exist and is always true. The laws of gravity govern physical bodies but they are not necessary truths. In fact we have no logical reason to believe the laws of gravity won't change via problem of induction.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It is not necessary for a transcendental mind to exist. The logical absolutes can be thought of by every thinking brain.

IF there is no more thinking brain, does there have to be logical absolutes?
Why?

What ARE logical absolutes?
Either they are concepts, then they require a thinking brain to exist.
Or they are core-fragments of reality. Which does not require a thinking brain, too.

Be that a transcendental thinking brain or not.

What if logic is something only the human brain can conceptualize?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What if logic is something only the human brain can conceptualize?

I think mind and brain contain different meanings. Concepts exist in minds not in brains. Brains have nothing but electro-chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not have a truth value, so if that is where we are going why would you trust your thoughts at all?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

It is not necessary for a transcendental mind to exist. The logical absolutes can be thought of by every thinking brain.

Again if the logical absolutes would still exist in the absence of humans, then their existence cannot logically be dependent upon humans which would mean there existence is dependent upon something outside of human existence, or something that transcends human existence. Premise 6 is derived from premise 2 and 3 so you have to explain why those are not sound in order to refute premise 6.

IF there is no more thinking brain, does there have to be logical absolutes?
Why?

You seem to be under the impression that when I say mind I mean brain. As I told Krazyshot, "Brains have nothing but electro-chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not have a truth value, so if that is where we are going why would you trust your thoughts at all?" Minds have thoughts and feelings and personalities.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your "logical absolutes" are hypothetical at best because at this time, there is no way to test the absolute nature of such logic. Being confined to one planet and one reality and all that good stuff. The rest of your argument falls apart as a result, especially at premise 6, given there has never been any evidence of a "transcendent mind".

Next!

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But that's because you can only think within the framework of how our brains work. We don't have evidence of how a brain developed throughout a different course of evolution on a different planet would behave. So we don't know if there are other ways intelligent minds could function in the universe.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Your "logical absolutes" are hypothetical at best because at this time, there is no way to test the absolute nature of such logic. Being confined to one planet and one reality and all that good stuff.

Any possible world must adhere to the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction. When you start denying these laws you are gonna fall into a heap of trouble. You are claiming a world can exist in which these concepts do not hold. I don't see you backing that up with anything though. I don't see why so many people don't understand that premise 6 follows from premise 2 and 3. If those are true then premise 6 is true.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But that's because you can only think within the framework of how our brains work. We don't have evidence of how a brain developed throughout a different course of evolution on a different planet would behave. So we don't know if there are other ways intelligent minds could function in the universe

That is a completely irrelevant point. Why consider something that has no logical or evidential arguments behind it. Your just making random assumptions my conclusions were derived thru logic.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No I am presenting a possibility that may exist in our universe (after all you cannot disprove right?) and given what we know about the universe isn't exactly unlikely either. So it certainly IS something we should consider. At least that is if you are truly honest about exploring all possible situations. Or are you just upset that you cannot refute my point?

This is called counter logic and meant to get you to think about your own argument to see if there are things you are leaving out of your logical sequence there. You don't know if alien brains elsewhere in the universe perceive the universe in a way that follows different rules of logic. Therefore, it reasons that a god that governs the entire universe may not be constrained by human logic.