Transcendental argument for the existence of God

The transcendental argument (TAG) is an argument for the existence of God that attempts to show that logic, science, ethics, and all the other good things in philosophy presuppose God's existence. That is, you can't make sense of them unless you stipulate that God exists.

Of course, it's very unclear that a theistic foundation is any better off than any of the myriad naturalistic foundations we habitually partake of. Moreover, it's unclear why we should take any foundation seriously if it works only by wildly stipulating entities that enjoy no independent support. Foundations seem too easy if we can simply mentally contrive a perfect foundation, no matter how outlandish, and then persuade ourselves to believe in it. I can resolve Cartesian doubts about sense reliability simply by stipulating that I have an infallible perceptual setup; but that's wishful thinking and I know it. It's unclear how a theistic foundation is different. For these reasons, this argument is unpopular among most theists and most philosophers, and it remains confined to a relatively small segment of Christian thought. Perhaps the recent and pioneering work of Alvin Plantinga on similar issues will help improve the argument, or lend it some credence; but Platinga himself has not promoted the transcendental argument.

Table of contents

1 More details on the argument 2 Objections 3 More Information

More details on the argument

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God is a very complex argument that is difficult to summarize in a few, short sentences. As stated above, its premise is that no worldview except the Christian theistic worldview as found in the Bible provides the necessary preconditions for science, ethics, logic, mathematics, morality, induction, etc. All other worldviews (Atheism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc), if carried out to their logical conclusion, are reduced to absurdity. TAG is a transcendental argument, one which proves itself from the impossibility of the contrary. (See also Immanuel Kant)

As mentioned above, one cannot wildly stipulate entities that enjoy no independent support; however, it is important to note that one’s worldview eventually must boil down to a single set of governing presuppositions that are the foundation of all other beliefs. Said another way, eventually we must come to an end of our chain of reasoning. If we believe A, and we believe A because of B, and we believe B because of C, and so forth, eventually we come to a belief that is the foundation of all our other beliefs. For the Christian, the self attesting Word of God is that fundamental, independent, foundational belief. According to TAG, only the Bible provides the necessary preconditions for rationality. TAG than challenges the core beliefs of the non-Christian’s worldview and shows where those foundations lead to arbitrariness, inconsistencies, or absurdity.

Objections

Some might question whether any worldview, if carried to its logical conclusion, is reduced to absurdity. Somehow non-Christians seem to do pretty good science, mathematics, logic, induction, etc. Non-Christians can be very ethical people, sometimes, perhaps, more so than a professing Christian.

Note that TAG does not say that non-Christians cannot be logical or moral, or that non-Christians are unable to perform scientific inquiry or mathematics. Rather, TAG argues that within a non-Christian worldview, there is no logical foundation that can make sense of these activities. Second, TAG asserts that Christianity is both self-consistent, and consistent with reality; i.e. that it does not lead to absurdity. This may not be true, but it would be the responsibility of the opponent to show both the consistency of his worldview, and to show that Christianity leads to absurdity.

For example, if one asserts that morality is relative, than any basis by which to condemn an action, say rape or child molestation, is lost. It may be inconvenient, it may be harmful to others, it may be undesirable for the well being of society, but it cannot be evil in any meaningful sense. Evil cannot exist if morality is relative. However, this does not mean that relativists cannot be moral. Rather, any appeal made for moral behavior on behalf of the relativist reveals a reliance on some absolute standard that his worldview denies.

TAG argues that the relativist must secretly rely on the Christian God to make sense of any appeal to morality. On the Christian worldview, there is an all-good God whose character is the basis for right and wrong. In his self-revelation, he reveals how man should act, and commands man to be moral. Thus, man does have an absolute standard of morality by which to commend or condemn one’s actions.

Thus, if the relativist wishes to remain consistent, he cannot condemn any action; not murder, not rape, not even the holocaust. To do so would betray his reliance on the notion of absolutes, and then we must wonder on what basis he is able to assert such absolutes.

More Information

A number of Apologists have used TAG, including Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and Michael Butler. Also see Michael Martin’s Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God.