The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument that attempts to prove God�s existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a deistic worldview, and that God is the source of logic and morals. Because the Christian God is the precondition of all human knowledge and experience, by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary, it follows that logic, reason, or morality cannot exist without God. For example, the argument proceeds as follows:
1.) Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
2.) If there is no god, knowledge is not possible.
3.) Therefore God exists.
Because the Triune God of the Bible, being completely logical, uniform, and good, exhibits a character in the created order and the creatures themselves (especially in humans), human knowledge and experience are possible. This reasoning, thus, implies that all other worldviews (such as atheism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.), when followed to their logical conclusions, descend into absurdity, arbitrariness, inconsistency, or preconditions of intelligibility. As a Christian theist I will use logic and reason to prove the existence of God for Christian theism as a philosophical system of thought against theism in general.
The Christian theist and non-theist both have their governing presuppositions by which the facts of experience are interpreted, even as all philosophical systems and worldviews do. At the most fundament level of everyone�s thinking and beliefs there are primary convictions about reality, man, the world, knowledge, truth, behavior, and such things; convictions about which all other experiences organized, interpreted and applied. It is these presuppositions which determine what we accept by ordinary reasoning and evidence for they are assumed in all of our reasoning and even about reasoning itself, and so we confer ably then to the transcendental proof of God�s existence.
Belief in the existence of God is not tested in any ordinary way like other factual claims, and the reason for that is metaphysically because of the non natural character of God and epistemologically because of the presuppositional character of commitment for or against His existence. Arguments over conflicting presuppositions between worldviews therefore must be resolved somewhat differently in the extra rationally then conflicts over factual existence claims within a worldview or system of thoughts. I suggest that I can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God�s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. It cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability of the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. To make sense of any law of logic, the non-theist or any other worldview other than the Christian God must secretly rely on the existence of the Christian God. Laws of logic are a reflection of the mind of God. The atheist and non-believer cannot adequately account for laws of logic in their worldview (Bavinck, 1977).
The laws of logic are universal, are not material in nature, are not conventions of men, and unchangeable. The laws of logic are immaterial in that they are not extended in space. The laws of logic are not conventions of men. Because the law of logic is not a convention of man, and there is no power in man to make logic a respecter of man, it follows that logic is not a convention of man nor is it a respecter of man. The law of logic cannot be a convention of man if it is not a respecter of man. Thus, if it were a convention of man we would be able to change it. Furthermore, if they were conventions of men then you may have different societies that would use different laws of logic. There are not societies that would say that it�s okay to go ahead and contradict yourself!
One example can be seen in the law of contradiction in which is the law that most correctly and accurately corresponds to reality. The law of contradiction is universal, and we don�t know anywhere where the law of contradiction would not apply. In logic, the law of contradiction judges as false any proposition P asserting that both proposition Q and its denial, proposition not �Q, are true at the same time and �in the same respect.� In the words of Aristotle, �One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.� According to Aristotle, first philosophy, or metaphysics, deals with ontology and first principles, of which the principle (or law) of contradiction is the firmest. Aristotle says that without the principle of contradiction we could not know anything that we do know. Presumably, we could not demarcate the subject matter of any of the special sciences, for example, biology or mathematics, and we would not be able to distinguish between what something is, for example a human being or a rabbit, and what it is like, for example pale or white. Aristotle's own distinction between essence and accident would be impossible to draw, and the inability to draw distinctions in general would make rational discussion impossible. According to Aristotle, the principle of non-contradiction is a principle of scientific inquiry, reasoning and communication that we cannot do without (Aristotle, 2008).
Because God, speaking in his word, is the ultimate epistemological starting point, there is no way of arguing for the faith on the basis of something other than the faith itself. God's authority is ultimate and thus self-attesting. To argue for the faith on any other authority is to assume there is a higher authority than God himself to which he must give account. But the very attempt to do this is self-defeating. Consequently, the Christian apologist must stand upon God's authoritative word and presuppose its truth when contending for the faith. Upon the rock foundation of God's word the Christian is able to demonstrate the foolishness of unbelieving thought while at the same time defend the greatness of divine wisdom and subjugate man's intellect to God's revelation.
Since the non-theist is so heartily convinced that univocal reasoning is the only possible kind of reasoning, we must ask him to reason univocally for us in order that we may see the consequences. In other words, we believe it to be in harmony with and a part of the process of reasoning analogically with a non-theist that we ask him to show us first what he can do. We may, to be sure, offer to him at once a positive statement of our position. But this he will at once reject as quite out of the question. So we may ask him to give us something better. The reason he gives for rejecting our position is, in the last analysis, that it involves self-contradiction. We see again as an illustration of this charge the rejection of the theistic conception that God is absolute and that he has nevertheless created this world for his glory. This, the non-theist says, is self-contradictory. And it no doubt is, from a non-theistic point of view. But the final question is not whether a statement appears to be contradictory. The final question is in which framework or on which view of reality the Christian or the non-Christian the law of contradiction can have application to any fact. The non-Christian rejects the Christian view out of hand as being contradictory. Then when he is asked to furnish a foundation for the law of contradiction, he can offer nothing but the idea of contingency.
What we shall have to do then is to try to reduce our opponent's position to an absurdity. Nothing less will do. Without God, man is completely lost in every respect, epistemologically as well as morally and religiously. But exactly what do we mean by reducing our opponent's position to an absurdity? He thinks he has already reduced our position to an absurdity by the simple expedient just spoken of. But we must point out to him that upon a theistic basis our position is not reduced to an absurdity by indicating the "logical difficulties" involved in the conception of creation. Upon the theistic basis it must be contended that the human categories are but analogical of God's categories, so that it is to be expected that human thought will not be able to comprehend how God shall be absolute and at the same time create the universe for his glory. If taken on the same level of existence, it is no doubt a self-contradiction to say that a thing is full and at the same time is being filled. But it is exactly this point that is in question whether God is to be thought of as on the same level with man. What the anti-theist should have done is to show that even upon a theistic basis our conception of creation involves self-contradiction.
We must therefore give our opponents better treatment than they give us. We must point out to them that univocal reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we must meet our enemy on their own ground. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions. It is this too that we should mean when we say that we are arguing ad hominem. We do not really argue ad hominem unless we show that someone's position involves self-contradiction, and there is no self-contradiction unless one's reasoning is shown to be directly contradictory of or to lead to conclusions which are contradictory of one's own assumptions (Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, 1969).
The transcendental argument for the existence of God argues against the moral relativist. The moral relativist must secretly rely on the existence of the Christian God to make sense of any moral value judgment. In the Christian worldview, there is an all-good God whose own character is the basis for the prediction of right and wrong to any thought or action. In creation, God has equipped man to be a moral being, and in His self revelation He reveals how man should act, and commands him to do so. Thus, man does have an absolute standard of morality by which to commend or condemn one�s thoughts or actions. On the other hand the relativist cannot commend or condemn any action; not murder or the opposite, not rape or the opposite, not theft or the opposite, for to do so would be an exposure of his reliance on the notion of absolute morality, and would be based on unacknowledged presuppositions and assumptions about right and wrong which he claims to reject. Instead, no moral commendations or condemnations can be accounted for from the relativist�s own worldview because they are derived unconsciously from Christianity, which the relativist in turn uses even in his arguments against the truth of Christianity (Til, The Defense of the Faith, 1955).
Some have argued that TAG is not a unique argument form, but is reducible to the more traditional arguments for God's existence. However, only in transcendental or indirect arguments bring us to the conclusion that the God of the Bible exists. The method of reasoning by presupposition may be said to be indirect rather than direct. This can be explained as follows:
The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to "facts" or "laws" whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point is required to make the "facts" and "laws" intelligible. The Christian apologist must, therefore, place himself upon the position of his opponent, assuming the correctness of his method simply for argument's sake, in order to show him that on such a position the "facts" are not facts and the "laws" are not laws. He must also ask the non-Christian to place himself upon the Christian position for argument's sake in order that he may be shown that only upon such a basis do "facts" and "laws" appear intelligible (Til, The Defense of the Faith, 1955). Those that argue against transcendental arguments claim that they may be either direct (positive) or indirect (negative). Therefore, the question to be answered is: are indirect arguments really distinct from direct arguments? We can certainly conceive of a positive argument that would lead to a transcendental conclusion. We might, for example, develop a causal argument for God's existence, prove that the ultimate cause of the world must have the attributes of the biblical God, and thus establish that all intelligibility in the universe derives from God. However, this is known as a causal argument and more specifically as a traditional cosmological argument, advocated by Thomas Aquinas, which concludes that there must be an Ultimate Cause, and this Ultimate Cause is God. The question before us is, is the traditional cosmological argument (or other traditional arguments for God�s existence) a version of the transcendental argument stated in a direct or positive way (Frame, 1994, p. 76)?
Transcendental arguments attempt to discover the preconditions of human experience. They do so by taking some aspect of human experience and investigating what must be true in order for that experience to be possible. Transcendental arguments typically have the following form. For x (or some aspect of human experience) to be the case, y must also be the case since y is the precondition of x. Since x is the case, y is the case. The argument mentioned above serves as a clear example of a transcendental argument. The application is as follows: for causality to be possible, God has to exist since the existence of God is the precondition of causality. Since there is causality, God exists. A result of this is that whenever non-believers employ the concept of causation, they are borrowing from the Christian worldview since only on a Christian worldview does causation make sense (Frame, 1994, pp. 69-74).
Does the traditional cosmological argument take this form? A brief sketch will show that it does not. The argument is outlined as follows: There are causes in this world and these causes are contingent. There is either an infinite number of contingent causes or there is a finite number. Since there could not be an infinite number because an infinite chain of contingent causes is impossible, there must be a finite number. Since there must be a finite number, there must be a first cause. The argument concludes by identifying this first cause as God.
Notice that this argument does not show the precondition of causality is God. Rather, it shows that the non-believer is perfectly justified in believing in causation and/or the concept of causation. It also assumes that human experience and understanding in general and causation in particular are perfectly intelligible outside the Christian worldview. None of the traditional arguments for the existence of God are in fact sound, and have been repeatedly refuted by Hume, Kant, Russell and many contemporary philosophers. The reason for this is because they do not presuppose the Christian worldview, and simply only give the concepts of being, causation, and purpose to the non-believer and assume that all these are intelligible on the unbeliever�s worldview.
Although traditional arguments can be presented so as to presuppose the Christian worldview, this is not how they have been historically formulated. Because Aquinas� cosmological argument attempts to prove the existence of God on the basis of causation in the world, this may be construed that the world is unintelligible apart from God. But this would equivocate on the word unintelligible. For example, the traditional cosmological argument tries to show that we could not explain the existence of the world apart from God. However, without positing the existence of God we would be ignorant of the origin of the universe. We would not know how it came into existence and so the universe would be, in this sense, unintelligible. Thus, the transcendental argument attempts to demonstrate that we could not account for world, causation, or any human experience without presupposing the existence of God. Without this presupposition, the world would be, in this other sense, unintelligible.
Another criticism is that while it (TAG) demonstrates the sufficiency of the Christian worldview to account for human experience, it does not demonstrate the necessity of the Christian worldview. First it is important to understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. A necessary condition is a condition that must be met in order to explain whatever it is that one wishes to explain. This explanation can take either a causal or logical form. In terms of causality, a necessary condition for fire is oxygen. However, the presence of oxygen alone is not sufficient to cause a fire; fuel and a struck match are also needed. Taken together, these three things, oxygen, fuel and a struck match are sufficient conditions for fire. In terms of logic, the necessary condition of a categorical syllogism leading to a conclusion is a major premise. A sufficient condition is that such an argument has both a major and minor premise.
Turning back to the objection, the opponent contends that even when it is granted that the existence of God is a sufficient condition for human experience, this does not prove that this is a necessary condition for human experience. Another version of this objection maintains that only the "fundamental" elements of Christianity are needed to provide the preconditions of human experience (the Trinity, the doctrine of creation, etc.), but not the "non-fundamental" elements (the fall, the atonement, the second coming, etc.). Bahnsen contends that this type of worldview merely apes the Christian worldview and, as such, is completely dependent upon it. That is, because this worldview has its intellectual origination in Christianity, it is not a legitimate competitor of the Christian worldview. Moreover, he maintains that it is the entire Christian worldview that provides the necessary conditions of human experience, not just a portion of it. The Christian worldview as a complete and organic system is necessary (Bavinck, 1977).
The Bible teaches that God is a God of knowledge (1 Samuel 2:3; Romans 16:27). Being eternally omniscient (Psalm 139:1-6), God is not only the source of his own knowledge; He is also the source and determiner of all truth. The Bible also teaches that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), that He is a rational being, the Lord God of truth (Psalm 31:5). The Bible speaks so much of God as being the God of logic, and in John 1:1 Jesus Christ is called the �Logic� of God: �In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.� The English word �logic� is derived from the Greek word Logos used in this verse. John 1:1 emphasized the rationality of God the Son. Logic is as eternal as God himself because �the Logos is God.� Hence, God and logic cannot be separated, and logic is the characteristic of God�s thinking (Clark, 1992).
This gives us a better understanding between logic and Scripture. Since Logic is God, and since Scripture is a part of �the mind of Christ� (1 Corinthians 2:16), it follows that Scripture must be logical. What is said in Scripture is God�s infallible and inerrant thought and it expresses the mind of God, because God and his Word are one. As the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches, �The Bible is a logically consistent book: there is a �consent of all the parts.�� This is why Paul could �reason� with persons �from the scriptures (Acts 17:2). Logic is embedded in Scripture. The very first verse in the Bible, �in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,� necessitates the validity of the most fundamental law of logic: the law of contradiction. Genesis 1:1 teaches that God is the Creator of all things, and that He created �in the beginning.� Scripture does not teach that is not the Creator of all things, nor does it maintain that God created all things 100 or 1000 years after the beginning. This verse assumes that the words: created, beginning, and so forth have definite meanings. It also assumes that they do not mean certain things. For speech to be intelligible, words must have univocal meaning. What makes the words meaningful and revelation and communication possible is that each word conforms to the law of contradiction (McDurmon, 2009).
Also fixed in Scripture are the two other principle laws of logic: the law of identity (A is A) and the law of the excluded middle (A is either B or non-B). The former is taught in Exodus 3:14 in the name of God itself: �I AM WHO I AM.� And the latter is found in the words of Christ, who said, �He who is not with Me is against Me� (Luke 11:23).
The most fundamental laws of logic cannot be proved. For any attempt to prove the law of contradiction would presuppose the truth of the law and therefore beg the question. Simply put, it is not possible to reason without using the law on contradiction, and in this sense the laws are axiomatic. They are only axiomatic because they are fixed or embedded in the Word of God. Because logic is embedded in Scripture, this is why Scripture, rather than the law of contradiction, is selected as the axiomatic starting point of Christian epistemology. Similarly, God is not made the axiom, because all of our knowledge of God comes from Scripture. For example, �God� as an axiom, without Scripture, is merely a name. Scripture, as the axiom, defines God.
As we are taught in the Bible, man is the image and glory of God (Genesis 1:27; 1 Corinthians 11:7). God �formed man in the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul� (Genesis 2:7). Adam became a type of soul that is superior to that of nonrational animals (2 Peter 2:12; Jude 10). Man, as God�s image bearer, is a rational being (Colossians 3:10). This is why the apostle Paul could spend time �reasoning� with his auditors �from the Scriptures� (Acts 17:2). Furthermore, because Christ is the Logos who �gives [epistemological] light to every man who comes into the world� (John 1:9), we are to understand that there is a point at which man�s logic meets God�s logic. In fact, John 1:9 denies that logic is arbitrary, and also denies polylogism. According to John, there is only one kind of logic: God�s logic. And the Logos gives to every image bearer of God the ability to think logically.
Man has the capacity to think logically, to commune with God, and to have God commune with him. God created Adam with a mind structured in a manner similar to his own. In the Scriptures, God has given man an intelligible message, �words of truth and reason� (Acts 26:25). God has also given man language that enables him to rationally converse with his Creator (Exodus 4:11), and such thought and conversation would not be possible without the laws of logic. Logic is indispensible to all (God-given) human thought and speech. This being the case, we must insist that there is no �mere human logic� as contrasted with divine logic. Such fallacious thinking does disservice to the Logos of God himself. One might argue here that the fall of man rendered logic defective, but this is not the case. The effects of sin indeed hinder man�s ability to reason correctly (Romans 1:21), but this in no way implies that the laws of logic themselves are impinged. Clark writes:
�Logic, the law of contradiction, is not affected by sin. Even if everyone constantly violated the laws of logic, they would not be less true than if everyone constantly observed them. Or, to use another example, no matter how many errors in subtraction can be found on the stubs of our check-books, mathematics itself is unaffected� (Cornelius Van Til, 1986).
Thus the Christian apologist may boldly assert that without an absolute personal being as the foundation of all things, there is no possibility of ethics. Without the ontological Trinity as the fount of all being, there is no possibility of unifying the particulars of human experience. Without the combined doctrines of the Trinity and man being God's image bearer there is no possibility of predication and thus language. Without the doctrine of God's sovereignty and providence there is not ground for inductive logic and science. Without a good and all-powerful God that creates both man and the natural realm there is no reason to believe that our senses are reliable. From these considerations it is clear why TAG is often described as an argument that proves the impossibility of the contrary. When one version of the non-Christian worldview is refuted, the general non-Christian worldview is refuted for all of them are variations on a common theme (Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, 205).
We can conclude God created the world, and this world reflects the uniformity that He imposes on it by His governing and all thinking is to reflect the same consistency or logical reference that is in God�s thinking. We learn about it because God reveals them to us in His Word and through Bible studies.
(Words:4,419)
Bibliography
Aristotle. (2008). Retrieved February 2, 2011, from Stanford Encycolpedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
Bavinck, H. (1977). The Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House.
Clark, G. H. (1992). Logic Workbook for Logic. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation.
Cornelius Van Til. (1986). The Man and the Myth. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation.
Frame, J. (1994). Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: R&R Publishing.
McDurmon, J. (2009). Biblical Logic: In Theory and Practice. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press.
Til, C. V. (1969). A Survey of Christian Epistemology. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Til, C. V. (1955). The Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Til, C. V. (1955). The Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
This is pure nonsense! This artifice of deception aims at trying to logically demonstrate that intellectualism alone proves the existence of God, when the scripture teaches that the true wisdom of God can only be comprehended through the Word of God, the Vox Dei [Latin for "Voice of God"].
This intellectual milkshake of seemingly understandable rhetoric, is nothing but Christian philosophy, aka "gnosticism".
This is nothing more than the Babylonian Mystery religion, of Satan, manifesting itself in every socioeconomic religio-philosophical system of governance that has existed since the beginning of time.
This is why Solomon, a man gifted with eternal wisdom, stated:
"THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN"
and,
"WHAT HATH BEEN IS NOW, AND WHAT IS TO BE HATH ALREADY BEEN".
Do you really think that this intellectual mumbo jumbo amounts to a hill of beans?
What good is the Word of God, if we are to believe that the reason of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, of "the trivium", are able to grapple with the ineffible mysteries of the sum of time?
Without the scripture being comprised of TWO parts, the Old and New Testaments, we would not have the basis for comprehending eternal knowledge and wisdom, nor the ability to discern the dichotomous relationship between God's wisdom and man's, aka Satan's.
"But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [! Cor 2:14]
Without the Holy Spirit and the Word instructing on the basis of all knowledge, man's wisdom appears to be wise.
