What Does AI Have to Say About TAG?

As readers here probably already know, AI is all the craze these days, and it’s not going away. I know next to nothing about AI myself, but my little experience with it is more than sufficient to give me some idea of its potential uses, some beneficial, others perhaps not so beneficial. But recently I got to wondering what AI can tell us about TAG, the transcendental argument for the existence of a god. Sometimes asking apologists to present this elusive argument has resulted in mixed and sometimes unsatisfying results. So why not ask AI? 

So I pulled up Chat GPT and plugged in my query. 

My first AI search was simply the query “What is TAG?”

Here are the results:

The term "TAG" can refer to different things depending on the context. Here are some common meanings of "TAG": 

1. TAG (Labeling or Identifier)

• Definition: A tag is a label or identifier that is used to categorize or organize items, data, or content. It can be a word, phrase, or code used to identify or classify a piece of information. 

• Examples:

• In social media or blogging, tags are used to categorize content, making it easier for users to find posts on similar topics (e.g., #travel, #food). 

• In programming, tags refer to elements or markers used in coding languages (e.g., HTML tags like

, , etc.). 

• In games, a "tag" can refer to a nickname or a player’s identifier.

2. TAG (Technology Advisory Group)

• Definition: In business or technology contexts, TAG might refer to a group of experts or consultants who provide advice or recommendations on various technologies or innovations. 

• Example: A TAG could help a company decide which new software tools to adopt or how to approach a technological challenge.

3. TAG (Test Action Group)

• Definition: In testing or quality assurance, a TAG might refer to a team or group responsible for conducting and managing tests, or it could be a set of actions grouped together for testing purposes.

4. TAG (Theoretical Action Grammar)

• Definition: In linguistics or natural language processing, TAG can refer to a syntactic theory used to describe the structure of sentences.

5. TAG (Targeted Advertising Group)

• Definition: In marketing and advertising, TAG may refer to a segment of users or consumers who are targeted for specific advertisements or campaigns based on their behaviors, interests, or demographic data.

6. TAG (Tribal Areas Government)

• Definition: In some regions, particularly in India, TAG refers to the governance or administrative structures related to tribal areas or communities.

If you're asking about a specific field or context where "TAG" is used, please provide more details so I can give a more accurate explanation!

Now this I found rather disappointing. On and off for the past twenty-five or so years I’ve been working rather closely with TAG, so it’s very familiar to me, so much so that the acronym “TAG” has essentially become a household word. AI does not seem to have what I understand TAG to mean anywhere in its storage banks. Meanwhile, some of the results that AI did produce are new to me. 

Then I thought, suppose I give AI the instruction to present TAG – which is what one does with arguments. So I used that as my next prompt. What will Chat GTP give me when I instruct it to present TAG? 

Unfortunately, this got me no closer to my desired results:

It seems like you might be referring to "TAG" in a specific context, but it's a bit unclear. "TAG" can have different meanings depending on the field or topic. For example:

1. TAG (Thematic Apperception Test) – A psychological test used to understand a person’s underlying motivations, concerns, and how they view the world around them. 

2. TAG (Technology, Art, and Games) – A popular acronym in the realm of creative fields or design, focusing on the intersection of these areas. 

3. TAG (Tagging in software or social media) – The process of marking or categorizing content, such as tagging people or keywords on social media platforms or within software tools. 

4. TAG (Title Attribute Group) – A term used in HTML, referring to metadata or descriptive elements in coding. 

5. TAG (Transported Asset Group) – A logistics term sometimes used in supply chain management.

Could you clarify which "TAG" you are referring to? I'd be happy to give you more detailed information!

These results are somewhat surprising – at least to me – since, other than in reference to marking items in software and social media, these results are completely different from my first query results. If I didn’t know any better, I might suspect that AI is just making things up as it goes. But some of these I have actually heard of – though they would not come to mind by the acronym “TAG” which I’ve long associated with presuppositional apologetics. 

So I tried a third query – third time’s the charm, right? This time I decided I needed to be more specific, since none of the results so far had anything to do with theism or theology. So I spelled it out explicitly in my next query, which used the prompt:

“present the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG)”

Now I hit paydirt! 

Here are the results I got this time:

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is a philosophical argument that aims to show that the existence of God is a necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge, logic, morality, and other fundamental aspects of human experience. It is most commonly associated with the presuppositionalist school of Christian apologetics, particularly promoted by philosophers like Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. 

Basic Structure of the Transcendental Argument (TAG): The core idea behind TAG is that certain things we take for granted, such as logic, science, and morality, presuppose the existence of God. In other words, the argument argues that we must presuppose God's existence to make sense of any kind of rational thought, meaning, or order in the universe. Here’s how the argument typically unfolds:

1. The Existence of Universal Laws: We live in a world where things behave according to certain laws (e.g., laws of logic, laws of nature). We expect consistency, order, and rationality in our reasoning. However, these laws or principles are abstract and not material—they cannot be directly observed or touched. 

2. The Necessity of a Foundation for These Laws: In order for these laws to be meaningful and consistent, there must be a foundation that guarantees their universality and reliability. Without a foundation, these laws would be arbitrary and unreliable. 

3. The Impossibility of Such Laws Without God: The TAG argues that these abstract principles (like the laws of logic or moral absolutes) cannot be grounded in an atheistic or naturalistic worldview. For example, in a universe without God, there is no absolute, unchanging standard that can ensure the objectivity and universality of laws like the law of non-contradiction or the principle of causality. 

4. The Necessity of God's Existence to Ground the Laws: The argument claims that only the existence of an eternal, personal, and rational God can ground these universal laws. God is seen as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of the universe, the laws of logic, and moral order. The idea is that without God, there would be no reason to expect consistency, order, or rationality in the universe. 

Conclusion: Therefore, the argument concludes that the existence of God is the necessary condition for the possibility of knowledge, science, morality, and reasoning. In other words, in order to make sense of the very things we take for granted in our experience, we must presuppose that God exists.

Key Points of the Transcendental Argument

• Presupposition: The TAG doesn't seek to provide empirical evidence for God’s existence in the usual sense. Instead, it argues that belief in God is presupposed in any attempt to reason or make sense of the world. It’s not just a hypothesis or a claim among others but a foundational starting point for rationality itself. 

• Inescapability of God: According to TAG, denying the existence of God leads to contradictions. For example, if an atheist claims that the laws of logic are merely the product of human minds or evolutionary processes, they are unable to explain why those laws are universally binding or unchanging across time and space. 

• The Impossibility of the Contrary: One of the strongest points of TAG is that it asserts that without God, it is impossible to account for the very things (such as logic, moral values, and scientific laws) that the atheist uses to argue against God. In other words, the attempt to deny God’s existence is itself incoherent because it relies on presuppositions that make sense only in the context of God's existence.

An Example of the Argument in Action 

Let’s break it down with a simplified example:

1. Premise: In order to reason coherently about the world, one must assume the laws of logic are universally binding and unchanging. 

2. Premise: These laws of logic cannot be grounded in an atheistic worldview because naturalism doesn’t offer a foundation for abstract, non-material entities (like logic itself). 

3. Conclusion: Therefore, the existence of God must be presupposed in order for the laws of logic (and by extension, reason, science, and morality) to be meaningful and objective.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

1. Circular Reasoning: Critics often argue that TAG is a form of circular reasoning. That is, it assumes God's existence as part of its argument for God's existence. For example, if the argument presupposes that logic can only make sense within a theistic framework, it could be seen as begging the question. 

2. Alternative Explanations for Logic and Morality: Others argue that naturalistic or secular explanations can account for the laws of logic and moral principles. For example, some philosophers claim that logical principles are inherent in human minds or that they arise from the nature of reality itself, independent of divine revelation. 

3. The Challenge of Universality: A common critique is that while it’s true that God might be a logical source for universal laws in the Christian worldview, there are other worldviews or explanations (e.g., platonic forms, social contract theories) that could potentially explain the universality of logic and ethics without invoking God.

Conclusion The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is a bold attempt to demonstrate that belief in God is not just reasonable but foundational for human experience. It asserts that God is the presupposition behind all knowledge, logic, and morality. While it is a powerful apologetic tool for presuppositionalists, it remains controversial and has faced significant criticism from atheists, agnostics, and even other Christian philosophers. Nonetheless, it presents a unique approach to the debate about God's existence by focusing on the preconditions for rational thought itself.

Much of this reads as though it were pulled from a primer on presuppositionalist apologetics, and perhaps some of it may very well have been so sourced. For a first-year theology student doing a paper on various types of apologetics, this might be quite helpful.

Numerous criticisms of TAG not given here can be brought to bear. For one, some theists of course would object to the attempt to find their god at the end of an argument. By endeavoring to construct arguments to conclude that a god exists, believers are performatively conceding that we do not have direct awareness of what they call “God.” We do not need to argue for the existence of things which we perceive directly. If I see that a tree has fallen on the road before us, I do not need to formulate a syllogism to prove that I should probably stop before plowing into it. Romans 1:19 even goes so far to say that the Christian god’s “invisible attributes are clearly seen” – presumably by everyone, which makes me wonder how they can be called invisible – thus giving supposed credence to the charge that non-believers “are without excuse” (v. 20). Efforts to cull together arguments which prove the existence of something which is supposedly “clearly seen” pose a nasty tension for the claim that it is “clearly seen.” 

TAG as it is rendered here (as well as other versions) is immanently susceptible to parody or transposition without losing whatever force it is thought to have. If one can plausibly claim that it is necessary to presuppose the Christian god for logic, morality, science, etc., why can one not also claim that it is necessary to presuppose some deity other than the Christian god for the same reason? Why is the Christian god necessary for the laws of logic to be universally binding and unchanging, but not Ahura Mazda or Amun? If essentially it is to believed that logic, morality, science, the uniformity of nature, etc., all need some supernatural being in order to exist and persist into the future, what objective evidence favors one deity over any and all others? TAG would need additional supporting arguments to defend its preference for a specifically Christian solution, which would inevitably lead to many rabbit holes. 

As the AI interface results present it here, the conclusion of TAG introduces a term – God – which is not present in the argument’s conclusions. TAG seems to be compressing two steps into one, thus executing what amounts to a sophisticated sleight of hand. It seems that the proper procedure would be to establish the existence of the god in question first, and then proceed to argue that these things which we (supposedly) take for granted all depend on it for their reliability. But that’s typically not what defenders of TAG do; rather, they collapse the two steps into a single move, apparently on the hope that nobody notices. Indefensible premises Argument from ignorance 

Ultimately, I would say that TAG’s greatest vulnerability is that it rests on untenable premises. Those premises trade on a most superficial and unphilosophical understanding of the topics adduced to support it. They seem to be informed in stark ignorance of the proper way to approach them. 

For example, logic is a conceptual operation, and to analyze its reliability one would need a good understanding of the objective theory of concepts. The objective theory of concepts rests on the primacy of existence – i.e., the recognition that existence exists independent of conscious activity, that things are what they are independent of desires, preferences, commands, that wishing does not make it so, that reality does not conform to conscious intentions. But this directly and fundamentally militates against theism, which rests on the opposite view – the primacy of consciousness – i.e., the view that wishing makes it so, that reality is the product of conscious activity, that reality conforms to conscious intentions, etc. I would argue – as I have here - that logic could not possibly presuppose the existence of the Christian deity. 

Science is often cited by apologists in that it relies on induction, and induction, it is said, assumes the uniformity of nature. Nature could hardly be supposed to be uniform, though, if supernatural beings can manipulate it by acts of sheer will. The religious view which claims that miracles actually happen is not at all aligned with the view that nature is inherently uniform, for on the view that miracles actually happen no uniformity can be assured. I may have just filled the water bottle with water, but if a supernatural being so wills it, that water will be magically transformed into wine. On the assumption that miracles can and actually do happen, how can one know that this will not happen? The fact that science is even a discipline worth human investment only confirms that theism is not true.

Morality is a code of values which guides one’s choices and actions. But values have a biological basis and pertain to choices ultimately relating to the fundamental alternative between life and death – an alternative that every human faces. But the Christian god is said to be immortal, unchanging, unharmable; it does not face the fundamental alternative between life and death and thus could have no use or need for anything. The concept ‘values’ simply would not apply in the case of such a being. It would not need food, water, shelter, medicine; it would not even need a purpose, for it would not need to act one way or another in order to achieve any goals – it would have no objective basis for setting any goals to begin with. Regardless what the Christian god is said to have commanded, human beings need values and they need to discover what they are and how best to obtain them by means of reason.

AI is supposed to continually be adding to its resource banks. Perhaps over time AI will “learn” more about the deficiencies of TAG. 

by Dawson Bethrick