abductive TS argument

[Metacrock]

If There is a God, We would expect to see:
________________________

I. Meaning would be bestowed in terms of a metaphysical hierarchy leading back to a universe sense of truth at the time and issuing a cascade of hierarchical organizing principles that bestow meaning by virtue of their authentication from the top.

II. We should see some kind of relationship between God and the TSed. or than the just the TS "God."

________________________
Argument: here's what we do see
________________________

(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.

(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)

(3) It is impossible to do without a Transcendental Signifier, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we cannot organize the universe without a principle of organizing.

(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Hierarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.

(5)The all pervasive nature of the TS is a good reason to assume that it's real.


6) The signifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine economy exactly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.

7) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conclusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is discretion of the Transcendental Signified.

8)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.

rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED.

________________________
If there is no God,
we should expect to see:
________________________


No meaning. Of cousre there would be hierarchical principles of language but the ultimate meaning would just break down, Derrida's principle of Deconstruction would work and his ultimate lat step would prove there is no ultimate meaning.

________________________
Here is what we do see:
________________________


Derrida follows the moves from Heidegger's Parmenides book. This means that both he and Heidegger affirm the inescapable nature of metaphysical hierarchies. Yes this undermines his whole project because deconstruction is an attempt to do away with metaphsyical hierarchies. Yet if they are inescapable then the project fails before it starts and there must be ultimate meaning some place. Thus we a good reason to believe that there is this all pervasive nature to Transcendental Signifiers, thus there must be a real TSed that actually does bestow meaning and theological significance.