How to use the Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence

October 27, 2024 Leave a comment

The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) is a very strong and irrefutable argument for the existence of a God. Though, I believe in the Christian God, this article’s purpose is to help you enter conversations with atheist that have been tricked by the world to deny Theism, or the existence of a Creator in general terms. Many atheists are really seeking the truth but will only find it in first, acknowledging the necessity of God’s existence and not in mere scientific or philosophical rhetoric. The thing is, many Christians are simply ill-equipped to enter conversations with atheists but after reading this, my hope is that you may at least be able to have a thought-provoking dialogue that will edify God and show that the followers of Christ are not simply blind-faithers but critical thinkers seeking and spreading truth, that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

TAG posits that God’s existence is necessary for the coherence of all knowledge, logic, and morality. This line of reasoning asserts that without a divine foundation, truth claims, ethical judgments, and rational discourse ultimately collapse. The argument, often framed in defense of Christian theism, challenges skeptics by asking them to justify their capacity to make knowledge claims or moral evaluations without invoking a transcendent, self-authenticating standard. In exploring this argument, several key points emerge that underscore the robustness of the transcendental defense of God’s existence.

One crucial element of this discussion is the distinction between scientific observations and metaphysical conclusions. A frequent objection from atheistic or naturalistic perspectives is that scientific laws, such as the first law of thermodynamics, can account for ultimate truths about the universe, including the eternity of matter and energy. However, such objections misapply scientific principles beyond their intended scope. Imagine you have a clock that keeps perfect time. Observing that it consistently shows the right time does not tell you why it works, who created it, or what maintains its accuracy. Let me break it down further… see, the law of conservation of energy, for example, explains that energy cannot be created or destroyed within a closed system, but it does not speak to the metaphysical question of whether matter and energy are eternal, meaning have no beginning or end. Scientific laws describe regularities within the observable universe but cannot account for why these regularities exist in the first place, nor what mechanism continuously upholds these laws and keeps them consistently true. The clock’s regularity—like scientific laws—is a given within its system, but we need an explanation outside of it to account for its origins and consistency. Hence, appealing to scientific laws without addressing the deeper metaphysical underpinnings only dodges or “strawmans” the core issue. C.S. Lewis, in his explorations on the limitations of scientific inquiry, famously argued that science can describe what happens, but it cannot explain why or how things like the laws of nature came to be.

Now that I’ve brough up a watch analogy, some atheists will have likely said, “Oh! Watchmaker’s fallacy!” However, unlike arguments that rely on observable complexity, such as the Watchmaker analogy, the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) does not rely on the physical design of the universe. The Watchmaker analogy suggests that intricate design in nature implies a designer, much like a watch implies a watchmaker. This argument relies on a human-centric view, comparing natural complexity to human-made artifacts and, thus, potentially falling prey to the Watchmaker’s Fallacy. TAG bypasses this issue entirely by focusing on non-physical foundations—like the laws of logic and moral absolutes—that demand a transcendent grounding rather than appealing to the natural world’s physical intricacies. By arguing that universal, invariant truths cannot exist without a divine foundation, TAG establishes God as the necessary precondition for all intelligibility, avoiding any analogy to human-made mechanisms. This approach not only sidesteps the Watchmaker’s Fallacy but presents a more robust foundation for theism by addressing the very conditions that make rational thought and moral judgments possible.

This leads naturally to the concept of self-authenticating propositions, which play a central role in the transcendental argument. A self-authenticating proposition is one that requires no external validation because its truth is inherent in its very nature. For example, when God reveals Himself through the declaration, “I am that I am” (Exodus 3:14), this is a self-authenticating truth. The statement’s validity rests solely on the nature of God, who as the ultimate being, requires no external justification. In the same way, the Christian claims about God’s existence and revelation are presented as self-authenticating. Attempts to challenge these claims must themselves be self-authenticating to have any weight, but as the transcendental argument demonstrates, these counterclaims typically fail to meet this standard. Alvin Plantinga, a prominent Christian philosopher, has emphasized that God, as a necessary being, is “the source of all modal possibilities,” meaning that His existence underpins all possibilities and logical coherency.

By emphasizing the necessity of self-authenticating truths, the transcendental argument exposes the logical vulnerability of atheistic or naturalistic worldviews. For instance, when atheists deny the existence of God, they often do so by appealing to rationality, evidence, or moral principles. However, without a transcendent source grounding these appeals, they lack the very foundation needed to make such judgments. Rationality, logic, and morality become arbitrary in a worldview that denies an ultimate source of truth. Cornelius Van Til, a foundational thinker in TAG, argued that rejecting God while continuing to use logic is like “borrowing capital from God” while denying the bank’s existence. Without God, there is no rational basis for assuming that our reasoning faculties are reliable or that moral principles are anything more than subjective preferences. The theistic worldview, in contrast, provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of these concepts. By grounding logic, morality, and truth in God’s nature, the Christian worldview offers a coherent foundation for knowledge.

One of the key objections to this argument often involves logical paradoxes such as the question, “Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?” This challenge is designed to undermine the notion of divine omnipotence by presenting it as contradictory. However, this objection misunderstands the nature of omnipotence. Omnipotence refers to the ability to do all things that are logically possible; it does not extend to performing logical contradictions, such as creating square circles or immovable objects that can be moved. The question, therefore, is not a legitimate critique of divine power but rather a confusion of categories. This is similar to asking, “Can an all-knowing mathematician create a number that doesn’t follow mathematical rules?” The question is nonsensical because it forces a contradiction. Norman Geisler explains that logical contradictions are not reflections of power but abuses of language and concepts; true omnipotence does not include performing logical absurdities. The transcendental argument avoids such pitfalls by demonstrating that God’s omnipotence is coherent within the framework of logical consistency, rather than being subject to paradoxes that arise from misapplied reasoning.

The transcendental argument also extends into moral reasoning. Without a transcendent moral lawgiver, there can be no objective basis for moral judgments. Atheists often appeal to concepts like human rights or social contracts to explain morality, but these frameworks are ultimately subjective. If morality is merely a human construct, then it cannot claim objective authority, and moral disagreements become irresolvable matters of opinion. Imagine attempting to play a game without a rulebook—each player could make arbitrary moves without an agreed-upon standard of conduct. By contrast, the Christian worldview grounds morality in the character of God, who is the ultimate standard of good. This divine foundation provides an objective basis for making moral judgments and condemning acts of evil. Without such a foundation, atheists are left with moral relativism, where no action can be definitively judged as good or evil beyond individual or societal preferences. William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, argues that atheistic ethics reduces morality to societal convention, which lacks the strength to define true good or evil.

A related objection: the issue of human rights and moral autonomy. For example, in debates over topics such as abortion, many argue from a standpoint of personal freedom or women’s rights. However, without a transcendent source for rights, these arguments lack a solid foundation. Where do these rights come from? If they are merely the product of human consensus or legal systems, they can be revoked or altered based on societal changes. In contrast, the Christian worldview holds that rights are derived from the inherent dignity given by God. Therefore, moral decisions—such as those concerning the sanctity of life—are not merely matters of personal preference but must be grounded in the recognition of God’s authority over life and morality.

Finally, the transcendental argument underscores that all worldviews are based on foundational assumptions. The question is not whether one has presuppositions but whether those presuppositions can provide a coherent foundation for knowledge, logic, and morality. In the case of Christian theism, God’s self-revelation serves as the ultimate foundation, allowing for the possibility of rational thought and moral evaluation. Atheistic or naturalistic worldviews, by rejecting this foundation, are left without a basis for their truth claims and ethical judgments.

In conclusion, the transcendental argument for God demonstrates that belief in God is not only rational but necessary for any coherent understanding of the world. Without God, attempts to establish truth, logic, or morality become self-defeating. By grounding knowledge in the self-authenticating nature of God’s revelation, Christian theism provides the only sufficient basis for making sense of the world and engaging in meaningful discourse. Any attempt to deny this leaves one adrift in a sea of arbitrary claims without the anchor of divine truth.

For this next section, I will share some opening arguments to start the conversation if you are prompted to provide one. When I say argument, I don’t mean 2 people bickering, I mean a formal statement that proposes a truth that it is open to be challenged. We are called not to argue with non-believers but to defend the faith, so I want to be clear that this is not that. These 5 arguments give a general explanation, biblical backing, a syllogism, their expected refutation and a rebuttal to that refutation. A syllogism is just when you give 2 (or more) truth claims that validate a logical conclusion. So, if A and B are true then C is the conclusion. Let’s dive in…

Argument 1: The Precondition of Logic

Logic is an abstract, immaterial, universal framework that remains invariant regardless of human perception. Within atheism, which posits a materialistic and often relativistic universe, there is no basis for such immaterial, universal constants. TAG posits that these qualities of logic align directly with the nature of God, who is eternal, immutable, and omnipresent. Logic, therefore, presupposes God.

  • Isaiah 55:8-9 says: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways…”
  • John 1:1 says: “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Syllogism:

  1. If objective logic exists, it requires a necessary, immaterial source.
  2. Objective logic does exist and is universally binding.
  3. Therefore, a necessary, immaterial source (God) exists as the foundation of logic.

Refutation: Atheists may argue that logic is simply a human construct or a product of the human brain that evolved to help us navigate the world. Logic, then, doesn’t need a divine source but rather developed as a natural survival mechanism. Alternatively, some may claim logic is simply a brute fact of reality, needing no further explanation.

Rebuttal: Logic’s universality, immateriality, and invariance contradict the idea of it as an evolutionary byproduct or arbitrary construct. If logic evolved, it would be subjective and liable to change—yet logic is fixed, objective, and universal, transcending human minds and cultures. Additionally, treating logic as a brute fact is an ad hoc solution, avoiding the question rather than answering it. By positing logic as reflective of God’s immaterial and immutable nature, TAG provides a coherent explanation, while atheistic explanations cannot consistently account for the existence and nature of logic.

Argument 2: The Foundation of Moral Absolutes

Moral absolutes require an objective foundation that transcends human subjectivity. Atheistic moral frameworks reduce morality to sociobiological or cultural phenomena, which implies that morals are changeable and relative. TAG asserts that the existence of objective moral values is evidence of a moral lawgiver, God, whose nature is the ultimate standard of good and evil.

  • Romans 2:15 says: “They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts…”
  • Matthew 5:48 says: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Syllogism:

  1. If objective moral values exist, they require an absolute and immutable source.
  2. Objective moral values do exist (e.g., prohibitions against murder, theft).
  3. Therefore, an absolute and immutable source (God) exists as the foundation of moral values.

Refutation: An atheist might argue that morality can be explained by evolutionary psychology and social contracts. Morality, in this view, arises naturally as a mechanism to enhance social cohesion and survival. The concept of objective moral values is thus rejected as unnecessary; instead, morality is subjective, culturally relative, and changes according to societal needs.

Rebuttal: The evolutionary argument for morality implies that moral values are flexible and contingent upon survival, which undermines any notion of objective moral standards. If morality is purely a survival tool, then acts like murder or theft cannot be condemned as intrinsically wrong but only as inconvenient to societal well-being. This relativistic approach cannot account for deeply held moral convictions about universal rights and justice. By contrast, TAG argues that objective morality requires an absolute, unchanging source, like God, whose nature defines what is objectively good and provides a stable foundation for moral truth.

Argument 3: The Necessity of Uniformity in Nature for Science

The scientific method depends on the assumption of uniformity in nature—that the future will resemble the past, governed by consistent natural laws. Atheism, which rejects any teleological foundation, cannot adequately justify this assumption. TAG argues that uniformity in nature is grounded in the sustaining will of a rational Creator, God, who provides a coherent framework for scientific investigation.

  • Genesis 8:22 says: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat… will never cease.”
  • Hebrews 1:3 says: “The Son is… sustaining all things by His powerful word.”

Syllogism:

  1. Science requires the presupposition of uniformity in nature.
  2. Uniformity in nature requires a rational, sustaining source.
  3. Therefore, a rational, sustaining source (God) exists as the foundation for scientific inquiry.

Refutation: Atheists often argue that the uniformity of nature is an observed regularity that requires no divine grounding. Inductive reasoning, they might argue, is a tool that science has developed to predict patterns without needing a metaphysical foundation. Uniformity, therefore, can be taken as an assumption based on consistent observations rather than requiring a sustaining will like God’s.

Rebuttal: Assuming uniformity without justification is circular reasoning and falls short of a robust explanation. Simply observing regularity does not account for why nature behaves uniformly; it only affirms that it does. TAG argues that uniformity is contingent upon God’s sustaining will, providing a metaphysical basis that atheism lacks. Without God, uniformity would be baseless, leaving science on unstable ground. By grounding uniformity in God’s reliable nature, the theistic worldview offers a coherent foundation for science.

Argument 4: The Epistemological Basis of Knowledge and Truth

Knowledge assumes objective truth—that our perceptions can correspond to reality reliably. Within atheism, which often assumes materialistic determinism, human cognition is the product of mindless evolutionary processes and lacks inherent reliability. TAG posits that God, as an omniscient being, provides the necessary precondition for reliable knowledge and the correspondence between mind and reality.

  • Proverbs 1:7 says: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”
  • Colossians 2:3 says: “In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

Syllogism:

  1. If knowledge is possible, there must be an objective standard of truth and reason.
  2. Knowledge is possible and evident in human experience.
  3. Therefore, an objective source of truth and reason (God) exists as the foundation of knowledge.

Refutation: An atheist might contend that human cognition is reliable enough to produce knowledge through trial and error, refined by natural selection. According to this view, knowledge doesn’t require a divine source; rather, evolution has honed our cognitive faculties to be functional, if not perfectly reliable. Atheists may argue that the success of science and technology supports this naturalistic basis for knowledge.

Rebuttal: If cognitive faculties are merely products of survival mechanisms, then truth becomes secondary to survival, undermining confidence in our capacity for objective knowledge. If evolutionary processes prioritize survival over truth, our cognitive faculties are pragmatically useful but not necessarily reliable in the pursuit of absolute truth. TAG posits God as the necessary precondition for reliable knowledge, grounding it in an omniscient being who created humans with the ability to perceive truth. Without this foundation, the atheist is left with a form of epistemological skepticism, where knowledge claims become mere evolutionary byproducts rather than reflections of reality.

Argument 5: The Existential Foundation of Human Purpose and Value

Purpose and intrinsic human value require a source that transcends mere biological existence. Atheistic frameworks, which view humans as products of random evolutionary processes, struggle to affirm intrinsic human worth or a meaningful purpose beyond survival. TAG contends that human purpose and value are grounded in God, who created humans in His image, thus bestowing inherent dignity and purpose.

  • Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created man in His own image…”
  • Jeremiah 29:11 says: “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord… plans to give you hope and a future.”

Syllogism:

  1. If humans possess intrinsic value and purpose, it must be rooted in a transcendent source.
  2. Humans do possess intrinsic value and a sense of purpose.
  3. Therefore, a transcendent source (God) exists as the foundation of human worth and purpose.

Refutation: An atheist might argue that human purpose and value are constructs created by humans for psychological and social benefits. Rather than being inherent, purpose and value can be seen as subjective and chosen by individuals or cultures, evolving over time. This allows people to find meaning in their lives without reference to a divine purpose.

Rebuttal: If purpose and value are subjective constructs, then they are ultimately arbitrary and lack intrinsic significance. This view reduces human life to a series of personal or societal preferences, without any objective basis for affirming human worth. TAG asserts that human dignity and purpose are grounded in being made in the image of God, who provides intrinsic meaning and value to life. Without God, purpose becomes merely individualistic, subject to change, and devoid of any ultimate significance. By rooting purpose in God’s design, the Christian worldview offers an objective, stable foundation for human value.

For this last section let’s do a rapid-fire QnA session to fill in any gaps in this conversation about TAG.

1. How can you prove God exists?

Answer: “Well, let’s start with a question: have you ever thought about why logic and reasoning even work? Every time we engage in rational discourse, we’re relying on principles that are immaterial, unchanging, and universal. In a purely materialistic worldview, it’s hard to explain where these immaterial principles come from or why they apply universally. But if we understand these principles as reflecting the nature of an absolute, immaterial God, we can see why they’re reliable and constant. Logic doesn’t come from a human mind but reflects something much greater—a transcendent source we identify as God.”

Explanation: The argument shows that logic, being immaterial and universal, is inconsistent with materialistic or relativistic worldviews, which can’t account for its unchanging nature. Instead, logic aligns with an immaterial, eternal God, providing a foundation for all rationality. So when we use logic, we rely on the very nature of God as the ultimate source of truth.

2. If God exists, why is there evil in the world?

Answer: “That’s a great question. To even recognize something as ‘evil,’ we’re assuming an objective standard of good to compare it to. But where would this standard come from if there were no God? For evil to be a meaningful concept, we need a fixed moral law, which we believe comes from God. Evil, in this sense, is not a thing on its own but a corruption of the good. So, the problem of evil doesn’t negate God’s existence—it actually points to it by affirming a moral order rooted in His nature.”

Explanation: The presence of evil presupposes a standard of good, which an atheistic worldview lacks. Without God, morality becomes subjective. The Christian framework understands evil as a deviation from good, reinforcing the need for an absolute moral law that God provides.

3. Why should I believe in a God I can’t see?

Answer: “Think about things we accept without seeing, like logic, numbers, or values. Just because something is invisible doesn’t mean it’s not real or necessary. We rely on the unseen laws of logic all the time. TAG argues that, just as logic is abstract and immaterial, so is God, who grounds these laws. God’s existence provides the foundation for the immaterial concepts we use in rational thought, even though we don’t perceive Him with our senses.”

Explanation: Belief in immaterial realities like logic, which are invisible but essential, reflects a similar belief in God, who grounds them. TAG shows that, like logic, God’s existence is necessary for coherent thought, even if He is not physically visible.

4. Can’t morality exist without God?

Answer: “Morality without God becomes arbitrary—just based on individual or cultural preferences. But we often act as if certain things are objectively right or wrong, like justice and fairness, no matter who we are or where we live. TAG shows that objective moral values, which don’t change with human opinion, need a fixed source, and that source is God. Otherwise, morality becomes relative, and concepts like ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ lose their grounding.”

Explanation: TAG highlights that without God, moral values are subjective. While atheists can behave morally, they lack a basis for objective morality, as morals become arbitrary without an absolute standard. Theism provides a stable foundation for universally recognized moral truths.

5. Why does God allow suffering?

Answer: “Suffering is a challenging issue, but it’s also a question of moral meaning and purpose. In the Christian view, suffering can serve a purpose within God’s overall plan, even when we don’t fully understand it. Without God, though, suffering lacks meaning—it’s just a random event in a purposeless universe. TAG suggests that suffering only makes sense if there is a moral framework and purpose beyond what we can see, and this is rooted in God’s nature.”

Explanation: The existence of suffering challenges atheistic explanations, which offer no reason for suffering beyond chance. TAG argues that suffering has meaning within God’s purpose and plan, while atheism views it as a purposeless byproduct of a random universe.

6. Can you prove that logic requires God?

Answer: “Consider that logic is abstract and unchanging—it doesn’t vary by place or time. If we try to explain logic without God, we’re left with a universe that is always changing and materialistic, which doesn’t account for immaterial and immutable laws like logic. TAG argues that these universal, fixed principles of logic require a foundation that’s also unchanging and eternal, which is exactly what we mean by God.”

Explanation: TAG asserts that without God, it’s inexplicable why logic, which is objective and unchanging, would exist. In a material universe, logic would be contingent and subjective. Logic instead reflects an unchanging, eternal God.

7. Why should I follow the Christian God and not some other god?

Answer: “That’s a fair question. TAG specifically shows that logic, knowledge, and morality all require a transcendental, personal foundation. The Christian God is unique in being both absolute and personal, unlike other gods who are either limited or impersonal. He reveals Himself as the source of all truth, giving us a foundation for understanding. This self-authenticating nature is unique to the Christian worldview.”

Explanation: TAG highlights that only the Christian God, who is both all-powerful and personal, can provide the comprehensive foundation for logic, morality, and intelligibility. Other gods lack either the personal relationship or absolute nature required for this grounding.

8. If God is omnipotent, can He create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?

Answer: “This question misunderstands what it means to be omnipotent. Omnipotence means God can do all that is logically possible. It doesn’t include contradictions, like creating a square circle or an immovable object that can be moved. God’s omnipotence is defined by His ability to act in accordance with His nature, which is perfectly logical and consistent.”

Explanation: The question erroneously frames omnipotence in terms of logical impossibilities. Logical contradictions (like a rock so heavy it cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being) are not actual “things” that can be done, even by a being who is all-powerful. Omnipotence doesn’t include the power to perform logical absurdities.

9. Why do you need God to explain the universe? Can’t it exist on its own?

Answer: “The universe is actually contingent—it depends on something beyond itself. TAG argues that the universe, being finite and changeable, needs a reason outside of itself to exist. Without God, we either face an infinite regress of causes or the belief that the universe simply appeared without explanation, which is irrational. Only a necessary being, like God, can provide the ultimate explanation for the universe’s existence.”

Explanation: The universe’s contingency implies it requires a cause outside itself. God, as the necessary, uncaused being, provides this ultimate foundation. Without God, the universe’s existence would require endless explanation or none at all, both of which are irrational.

10. Why does God need to be the foundation for knowledge? Can’t humans figure things out on their own?

Answer: “For humans to make sense of the world, we rely on the laws of logic and truth, which are immaterial and objective. TAG argues that without a foundation for these laws, human knowledge becomes uncertain and arbitrary. Only by grounding knowledge in an omniscient and unchanging God can we have real confidence that our thoughts and understanding reflect reality accurately.”

Explanation: Without God, human reasoning would lack an objective basis, leading to skepticism. TAG posits that knowledge and truth are grounded in God’s nature, providing assurance that our mental processes align with reality. Without this grounding, certainty in knowledge would be undermined.

Wrapping up, I hope this was edifying and educational to you as a truth-defender or truth-seeker. We have to understand there is truth outside our minds and that truth is what validates our reasoning and existence. Without it we fall into circular reasoning, never finding any absolutes just relying on a world-view with no truth in it except that random unguided processes and happen-stance can create beauty, intelligence and purpose. You were purposely created with love by a Creator to create and now you have undeniable proof!