The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove the existence of the Christian God by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a supreme being and that the Christian God must therefore be the source of logic and morals.[1]

A version was formulated by Immanuel Kant in his 1763 work The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God, and most contemporary formulations of the transcendental argument have been developed within the framework of Christian presuppositional apologetics.[2]

Transcendental reasoning

Transcendental arguments should not be confused with arguments for the existence of something transcendent. In other words, they are distinct from both arguments that appeal to a transcendent intuition or sense as evidence, and classical apologetics arguments that move from direct evidence to the existence of a transcendent thing.

They are also sometimes said to be distinct from standard deductive and inductive forms of reasoning, although this has been disputed, for instance by Anthony Genova[3] and Graham Bird.[4]

Ash'ari

Medieval Ash'ari Islamic theologians formulated a type of transcendental argument based on the notion that morality, logic, etc. cannot be fully understood apart from revelation and thereby, belief in the Quran and the Islamic truth claims were necessary in order to interpret the external world. For al-Ashari and others, it does not make sense to argue against religion using a priori assumptions about morality or scientific probabilities when these can only be understood in light of divine revelation.[5]

The argument

The TAG is a transcendental argument that attempts to prove that God is the precondition for logic, reason, or morality. The argument proceeds as follows:[6]

  1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).
  2. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God.
  3. Therefore, God exists. If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.

Cornelius Van Til likewise wrote:

We must point out ... 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 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.

— (A Survey of Christian Epistemology [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969], p. 204).

Therefore, the TAG differs from thomistic and evidentialist arguments, which posit the existence of God in order to avoid an infinite regress of causes or motions.

Reception

Some reject the validity of the argument pointing out various flaws, such as a category error involved in the first premise of the argument, namely that just because there is a statement that is universally true it will not make that statement a part of reality in itself.[7] Another issue pointed out is that it is not needed to have a god to have logic or morality.[8] In particular the existence of multiple logic systems with differing axioms such as non-classical logic[9] as well as multiple radically different moral systems[10][11][12][13] constitutes evidence against the idea that logic and morality are actually universals. Furthermore, the existence of theorems like Gödel's completeness theorem and the soundness theorems for classical logic provide justification for some logic systems like classical propositional logic without using any god hypotheses thus contradicting the first premise of the argument. It is worth noting however that Gödel also produced a classical propositional proof of god in Gödel's ontological proof. Finally, Internet Infidels co-founder Jeffery Jay Lowder has argued that TAG is fatally flawed for numerous reasons.[14] First, Bahnsen failed to defend the necessity of Christian theism for the rational justification of the laws of logic, the laws of science, and the laws of morality. Second, Bahnsen conflated "atheism" with "materialism" and TAG is really an argument against materialism, not an argument for theism. Third, Bahnsen believed that the laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality were abstract objects, but Christian theism underdetermines the relationship between the Christian God and abstract objects. Some Christian philosophers, such as Peter van Inwagen, affirm heavyweight Platonism and the compatibility of Platonism and Christianity. But other Christian philosophers argue that Platonism is incompatible with divine aseity. William Lane Craig urges Christian philosophers to consider anti-realist theories of abstract objects.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Michael Martin (1997). "Does Induction Presume the Existence of the Christian God?". Infidels. Retrieved 21 April 2011. But what about The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG)--the argument that logic, science, and objective ethical standards presuppose the existence of God?
  2. ↑ Martin, Michael (1997). "Does Induction Presuppose the Existence of the Christian God?". Skeptic. 5 (2): 71–75.
  3. ↑ Anthony C. Genova, "Transcendental Form," Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 11 (1980): 25-34.
  4. ↑ Graham Bird, The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason (2006).
  5. ↑ Roy Jackson (2014-02-05). What is Islamic Philosophy?. Routledge. pp. 32–33. ISBN 9781317814047.
  6. ↑ Meister, Chad V.; Mittelberg, Mark; McDowell, Josh; Montgomery, John F. (2007). Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books. ISBN 978-1-58134-787-6.
  7. ↑ Atheist, Friendly. "Responding to the Most Common Arguments for God's Existence". Friendly Atheist. Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  8. ↑ Examined, Cross (2013-12-09). "A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (3 of 3)". Cross Examined. Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  9. ↑ Ciabattoni, Agata. "Non-classical Logics: Theory, Applications and Tools" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-08-27.
  10. ↑ Alexander, Larry; Moore, Michael (2016), "Deontological Ethics", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-08-27
  11. ↑ Wong, David (2018), "Chinese Ethics", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-08-27
  12. ↑ Hursthouse, Rosalind; Pettigrove, Glen (2018), "Virtue Ethics", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-08-27
  13. ↑ Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2019), "Consequentialism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-08-27
  14. ↑ The Verdict Is In: Assessment of the 1985 Bahnsen-Stein Debate, "Does God Exist?", retrieved 2023-05-23
Notes
  • E. R. Geehan, ed., Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980).
  • Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998).
  • John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995).
  • Steven M. Schlissel, ed., The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen (Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, 2002).
  • Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith". Robert R. Booth, ed. (Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, 1996).
  • John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994).
  • John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987).

Articles

Debates

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.