In certain respects, I may be "a day late and a dollar short" on analyzing Trey Jadlow's Argument for the Existence of God. He's been taken on by many well known YouTube atheists. But there will be new ones, or those who want to take it further, and of course, those who wish to go over it again (and after listening to him in the videos I reviewed, I don't think his argument will change).
For those of you that want it all laid out, my recent video of the same post title (and the table below) is what I gleaned from multiple hangouts which I partially scripted and then analyzed. Sometimes in trying to learn a complex concept or subject, we may learn slowly at first, taking a lot of notes, everything very fluid...and then we have a moment where all that we've learned suddenly solidifies, and the learning curve takes a sharp steep curve upwards (at least that's how it is for me). That moment for me came when I listened to the video with Trey and Jim Gardner, the fifth or sixth after about 20-plus pages of script.
Jim made the statement to Trey that he was putting words in his mouth, and that was when it hit me--so I e-mailed my good friend Deconverted Man, to ask him what "putting words in the mouths of others" might be in terms of a fallacy. Deconverted Man came back with "this is a form of straw man." I also began to realize that Trey's redefinition of the principle of Causality was the lynch pin--or perhaps more like the Achilles Heel--of his argument (along with misuse of the Law of Non-Contradiction). For that, I knew there was only one thing I could do: ask Ozy (Ozymandias Ramses II) to confirm the correct definition of Causality. Hint: it wasn't the one Trey uses.
With a series of bare assertions, his own definitions, and a lot of false choices thrown in for good measure, Trey Jadlow has designed an argument of sophistry like a game of "Heads I win, Tails you lose." No wonder he trolls YouTube for people to debate with.
Like the one I did for pre-suppositional apologetics, below is a table breaking down Trey's Argument with some explanation and counter-responses, which follows my recent video breaking it down, but goes a little further on Trey's "necessary corollaries." If I have anything philosophically (or otherwise) in error, please let me know and I will edit the table.
For those of you that want it all laid out, my recent video of the same post title (and the table below) is what I gleaned from multiple hangouts which I partially scripted and then analyzed. Sometimes in trying to learn a complex concept or subject, we may learn slowly at first, taking a lot of notes, everything very fluid...and then we have a moment where all that we've learned suddenly solidifies, and the learning curve takes a sharp steep curve upwards (at least that's how it is for me). That moment for me came when I listened to the video with Trey and Jim Gardner, the fifth or sixth after about 20-plus pages of script.
Jim made the statement to Trey that he was putting words in his mouth, and that was when it hit me--so I e-mailed my good friend Deconverted Man, to ask him what "putting words in the mouths of others" might be in terms of a fallacy. Deconverted Man came back with "this is a form of straw man." I also began to realize that Trey's redefinition of the principle of Causality was the lynch pin--or perhaps more like the Achilles Heel--of his argument (along with misuse of the Law of Non-Contradiction). For that, I knew there was only one thing I could do: ask Ozy (Ozymandias Ramses II) to confirm the correct definition of Causality. Hint: it wasn't the one Trey uses.
With a series of bare assertions, his own definitions, and a lot of false choices thrown in for good measure, Trey Jadlow has designed an argument of sophistry like a game of "Heads I win, Tails you lose." No wonder he trolls YouTube for people to debate with.
Like the one I did for pre-suppositional apologetics, below is a table breaking down Trey's Argument with some explanation and counter-responses, which follows my recent video breaking it down, but goes a little further on Trey's "necessary corollaries." If I have anything philosophically (or otherwise) in error, please let me know and I will edit the table.
Trey Jadlow Claims
|
Objections/Commentary
|
Counter response (s)
|
|
1
|
P 1: Contingency exists.
P 2: Contingency requires
aseity.
C: Therefore, aseity exists
(From Convo with Dave S)
(To Alex Botten who asked for Trey's "child argument"):
"Johnny, are you dependent for your existence, did you happen...
and he says yes...and I say oh, well, then Johnny, god exists."
|
Begs the question: Contingency is everything other than aseity.
If Trey will not consider other gods as possible candidates, then there is only one object in the "self-existent aseity" set, which is his god.
P1 is a mask for "everything [except aseity]
is contingent."
(Secular Web/Ontological Arguments for God)
|
Can the aseity only be your god?
Yes: it begs the question
(circular).
God exists, therefore you're contingent. You're contingent, therefore
god exists. (pumped up with
"for the law of non contradiction/identity to hold")
No: Trey must grant other
possible solutions or hypothesis (See # 6
)
|
2a
|
His argument is "scientific proof" of god. Trey states this in almost every discussion.
|
Error: Scientific methodology
is "provisional and tentative."
|
Do you hold your argument to be true? If yes, then NOT scientific.
If no, then explain how it would be tested (falsifiability).
|
2b
|
Natural versus supernatural/ transcendent
"God is part of the universe and so he exists." (3/14 Fox
& Floyd 1:04:30)
|
Error: Science is only
capable of investigating natural phenomena.
Trey avoids supernaturality; he told Alex Botten his god is "timeless, spaceless,
non-corporeal." He even
asked what was meant by "natural."
|
Can your god be detected
by natural means (other than theologically)?
Yes -- (go to next step on "falsifiability")
No -- If "not natural" then cannot be investigated by
science, therefore not scientific.
|
2c
|
Falsifiability
Dave S asked Trey if what he meant by universe was everything other
than God and he answered yes.
|
Error (not falsifiable):
The scientific method includes falsifiability;
that is, its theories and models must be continually tested to see if they
are correct.
|
What is the data you observe that makes your argument scientific?
If "You, or Existence or reality"
How do you falsify reality?
Because everything* is reality, then it can't be tested, and so is
not scientific.
*Also, "micro events" (radioactive decay) have no known
causes.
|
3
|
The principle of cause and effect (PCE) is an analytic truth. Trey has repeated this many times
strenuously.
To Matthew Steele: "The principle of causality is an
analytic truth, it's a tautological statement."
"A statement is an analytic truth or falsehood if it can be
proved or disproved using only definitions and logical laws; otherwise it is
synthetic." (Google search)
|
Equivocation:
Trey tries to use it as both analytic AND synthetic. An analytic truth is basically
defined within the statement and is independent of reality. Trey then invokes the Law of Non-Contradiction when speaking of existence (reality) as violating PCE, but since it is an analytic, it cannot validate existence, so he is trying to have it both ways.
Trey has been told this by Fox in the Know (3/14) and in commentary. Has also been verified with Ozymandias Ramses.
|
Do not grant use of PCE in both ways, and always ask: Is that which exists reality? (Because with an analytic definition, PCE cannot be used to define reality).
Trey's USAGE of PCE makes it a synthetic since he's applying it ontologically--to prove existence, reality. Facts about reality cannot be proven by (are independent of) analytic statements. So to agree that it's analytic for the sake of argument, and then have Trey use it as a synthetic (to "prove" reality), is misleading.
|
4
|
Presupposes reliability of senses
|
Trey uses this to support "scientific argument" (empirical
observation) as he explains "we as the inquirers"
|
It needs to be pointed out that this contradicts his assuming PCE as
an analytic, because empiricism is not needed for an analytic statement to be
true.
|
5
|
Principle of cause and effect (PCE) is "inextricably
linked" (Trey's words) to the law of non-contradiction (LNC).
"If you hold the law of non-contradiction, then self-existence
[his god] must be. If it doesn't,
then you would not exist."
(Trey, at start of Mathew Steele debate)
"Causality is the law of non contradiction in application."
(3/14 Fox & Floyd Fp ~27:00)
|
Fallacy: False Dichotomy
(thru redefinition of PCE and scientific proof). He uses it to claim opponents are
violating LNC or law of identity, when he smuggles buzz words (acted on,
happens) into the debaters' mouth to invoke his ipse dixit "necessary or
break LNC (or law of identity)."
It's applied to almost every objection to create a false dichotomy of
contingence versus self existence, as well as its "necessary"
attributes as defined by Trey (ipse dixit).
|
Cite sources. Where does
it say these are linked, how are they one in the same? How would you justify such a link?
Also see #3, analytic statements cannot be used to prove reality.
The crux of scientific investigation is falsification, but by
positing a contingent or self existent false choice, Trey is denying any
attempts at falsification.
Trey's argument is abductive (inference to
his "best" explanation) which allows for the possibility there are
other explanations. So Trey cannot deny there might be other
explanations.
Since it's HIS proposition these are linked, and any inquiry is
denied by positing a false dichotomy, the LNC link cannot be granted.
|
6
|
There must be something self-existent: "...there must be
something somewhere somehow with the attribute of self-existence to have made
me." (To also end infinite regress of cause and effect)
Trey usually goes over this at every
discussion.
|
Fallacy: Argument from
Ignorance (God of the Gaps)
Note: When Matt Steele
asked why an explanation (for a prime mover) is required, Trey replied "But then you're going to have to deny the law of
non-contradiction because you have to concede that contingency exists." (See #3)
|
Please explain "somewhere, somehow." (That is what scientific explanations
are meant to do.)
See above: We can grant this is an abductive
argument (inference to best explanation). As such, other explanations can be
considered, and they do not violate LNC or law of identity.
|
7
|
PREDEFINED ATTRIBUTES
|
Fallacy: Ipse Dixit
(Appeal to Authority)/Special Pleading
Trey will claim these are "necessary
corollaries" of self-existence.
If you posit anything with one of these attributes (as part of
self-existent entity: being with volition, singularity, omnipotence,
unchanging, actuality, no potential, language of accommodation), he will
insist you must justify it/or it violates LNC or law of identity.
|
As noted above, if you can get to where Trey must grant there are
other possibilities, you cannot grant that any of them must be
justified. You can also do a reductio ad absurdum as to how this entity acquired any
of these attributes.
Who says it has to be ______?
Why does it have to be _______?
Where did its _______ come from (if he
answers "his being", then where does he get his being?)
|
7a
|
Must be a singularity
Must be "superlative" (3/14 Fox & Floyd 29:40)
"logically impossible"
|
Ipse Dixit: According to
Trey, the self-existent entity must be a singularity because when there is
more than one entity with these attributes, one must necessarily have
"acted upon" the other for existence.
|
As Trey "sneaks in" the words "acted [up]on" to
invoke the ipse dixit that this necessarily means contingency, therefore LNC
denial, you must ask him where you said "acted upon" and why he is
putting words in your mouth.
Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
|
7b
|
Must be omnipotent
|
Ipse dixit: According to
Trey, it must necessarily have omnipotence OR something (with omnipotence)
acted upon it, making it contingent
|
As Trey "sneaks in" the words "acted [up]on" to
invoke the ipse dixit that this necessarily means contingency, therefore LNC
denial, you must ask him where you said "acted upon" and why he is
putting words in your mouth.
Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
|
7c
|
Must be sentient or have volition
|
Ipse dixit: According to
Trey, it must necessarily have volition/sentience OR something (with
sentience) acted upon it, making it contingent
(could also be a category error because he is assigning being to
first cause)
|
As Trey "sneaks in" the words "purposed" (or
"intentionality") to invoke the ipse dixit that the self-existent
entity must necessarily be a being who "acted [up]on" (which he
might also sneak in) the entity proposed, you must point out that he is
putting words in your mouth.
Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
|
7d
|
Is "Pure Actuality"
http://www.desiringgod.org/
conference-messages/thinking-deeply-in-the-ocean-of-revelation-the-bible-and-the-life-of-the-mind
"He alone eternally is. He alone is pure actuality. What is
God’s potential? How can the Lord get any better? He is already
perfect."
|
Standard, dictionary definition of Actuality:
As a matter of FACT, current;
Synonyms are " real,
true, genuine, authentic, verified, attested, confirmed...existing, existent,
manifest, substantial, factual, de facto, bona fide..."
Antonyms:
"Spiritual, counter-feit, fictitious,
imaginary, hypothetical, false, theoretical..."
As Trey has admitted it is immaterial/non-physical, he is defining it
as a conscious (see primacy of existence, next column.)
|
Here it appears Trey (or R. C. Sproul?) has
created this property of God in
order to define him into existence (deny it is supernatural)
Trey also told Alex Botten
he agrees with "primacy of existence." Since his god has attribute of
"being" and is "sentient" does he exist as a
consciousness?
If he does, then Trey is contradicting the primacy of existence and showing
he believes in primacy of conscious, because consciousness cannot create
anything ("wishing doesn't make it so" per Dawson Bethrick).
AND/OR
Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
|
7e
|
No potential (see above, pure actuality from desiring god website)
Trey to Jim Gardner at about 23:00 (Jim asks him to tell him
"what the cause is) "...therefore that which gives it (reality)
existence (a self- existent creator) is that which CHOOSES to create
it."
|
Special Pleading: Language of accommodation is the cover.
Having purpose means being contingent, according to Trey.
He will also claim this makes a "purposer"
a necessary corollary, which is his god.
|
Does potential mean "God can't get any better because he is
perfect?"
If yes--Does perfect mean god is not purposive (since he has no need
to be)?
If yes-, is your god eternal in his perfection ?
Yes: Then why did he
choose to create the universe? or
What was his PURPOSE in creating the universe? (Does he convey his purpose in
language of accommodation?--then he's contingent, or go to 7g)
AND/OR
Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
|
7f
|
No potential / unchanging
"He alone eternally is. He alone is pure actuality. What is
God’s potential? How can the Lord get any better? He is already
perfect."
|
Special Pleading: A being
with no potentiality who is perfect or is a maximally great being is like a
maximally great number, or an infinitely great number; you cannot add to
infinity since by definition it has insurmountable value.
|
You claim your god is the creator of the universe. Did your god exist prior to his
creating the universe?
Yes: So he went from being a potential creator to the creator?
(Note: Trey's response to a like question from Fox itk: God must
use analogous language to communicate = god doesn't change but we perceive it
as change ...assertion as special pleading...and see #7g)
AND/OR
Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
|
7g
|
God "uses" analogous language as "solution" to
"unchanging changer" to avoid contradiction
13Heathens (ShadowHeathen?) teased this out of Trey in 3/14 Fox & Floyd hangout around 1:00:00 -- Humans "perceive" change even though God is unchanging. |
Special Pleading: God is unchanging but we perceive it as change when it isn't change
by god (such as when Jesus came to earth)-- which could mean EVERYTHING we
observe is an illusion because it's nothing but "analogous
anthropomorphic
communication." |
Is the only way for us to know god exists through his analogous
anthropomorphic communication?
Then god is contingent on such communication (for his perceived
existence and activities)
Is there actual change or is there just analogous communication where
we perceive change?
Actual Change - Then God is not unchanging.
Just communication - Then we live in an illusion where change is only
perceived.
|
8
|
Infinite regress of cause and effect is not possible (must begin with
self-existent being):
"..explodes into nonsense and every thing
is chaos" (to Alex Botten)
|
Argument from ignorance: Trey's god fills in the gap of how to end
the infinite regress of cause and effect, just the assertion that it's an impossibility and irrational.
(Also see #6)
|
Please explain how infinite regress of cause and effect comes to an end
with an "unmoved mover" without ad hominem or other emotive
descriptors.
|
9
|
God "is logic"
|
Trey insists this is true because of the word "logos" in
John 1:1
|
God is inside/part of the universe according to Trey. Do the laws of logic obtain outside
the universe (or if God did not exist)?
No -- it's circular
(begging the question
Yes -- God is redundant
(Occam's Razor)
|
10
|
Going from self existent being to his god
"[The Bible is literally true] is my conclusion."
(3/14 Fox & Floyd ~26:30)
|
(1) 12,000 manuscripts
(2) Sir Walter Ramsay
(That's as far as he got with Alex Botten)
|
This, along with Trey's view on morality, will be reserved for
another occasion.
|
