Transcendental argument for the existence of God

The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by appealing to the necessary conditions for the possibility of experience and knowledge.^[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. C. S. Lewis's argument from reason is also a kind of transcendental argument.

Most contemporary formulations of a transcendental argument for God have been developed within the framework of Christian presuppositional apologetics and the likes of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen.^[2]

"Transcendental" in this case is used as an adjective specifying a specific kind of argument, and not a noun. Transcendental arguments should not be confused with arguments for the existence of something transcendent. Rather, transcendental arguments are arguments that make inferences from the ability to think and experience.^{[citation needed]}

So-called progressive transcendental arguments begin with an apparently indubitable and universally accepted statement about people's experiences of the world. They use this to make substantive knowledge-claims about the world, e.g., that it is causally and spatiotemporally related. They start with what is left at the end of the skeptic's process of doubting.

Progressive transcendental arguments take the form of modus ponens with modal operators:

If possibly P, then necessarily Q.

Actually P.

Therefore, necessarily Q.

Regressive transcendental arguments, on the other hand, begin at the same point as the skeptic, e.g., the fact that we have experience of a causal and spatiotemporal world, and show that certain notions are implicit in our conceptions of such experience. Regressive transcendental arguments are more conservative in that they do not purport to make substantive ontological claims about the world.

Regressive transcendental arguments take the form of modus tollens with modal operators:

If possibly P, then necessarily Q.

Actually not Q.

Therefore, necessarily not P.

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]

There are many versions of the transcendental argument for the existence of God (both progressive and regressive), but they generally proceed as follows:^[5]

1. If there is a transcendental unity of apperception, God exists.
2. There is a transcendental unity of apperception.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The transcendental unity of apperception refers to the combination of different impressions, experiences and categories into a single, intelligible consciousness held by a person. It is argued that the negation of the existence of God therefore entails the impossibility of knowledge, which is self-refuting.

The TAG differs from thomistic and evidentialist arguments, which presuppose the validity of human perception and judgement when proving the existence of God.

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.^[6]

Barry Stroud has criticized transcendental arguments, distinguishing between epistemic and metaphysical transcendental arguments. The former says the belief in God (which might be false) is necessary to make sense of the world, while the latter says the existence of God is necessary to make sense of the world. Stroud argues transcendental arguments often only establish the former, but assert the latter.^[7]

Internet Infidels co-founder Jeffery Jay Lowder has argued that the presuppositional apologetics' version of TAG is fatally flawed for numerous reasons.^[8] First, Bahnsen fails to defend the necessity of Christianity instead of the mere sufficiency for the rational justification of the laws of logic, the laws of science, and the laws of morality. In other words, such reasoning affirms the consequent. Second, Bahnsen conflates "atheism" with "materialism" and has really presented an argument against materialism, not an argument for Christianity. Third, Bahnsen believed that the laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality are abstract objects, but Christianity arguably underdetermines the relationship between God and abstract objects. Some Christian philosophers, such as Peter van Inwagen, affirm Platonism and the compatibility of God and abstract objects. 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.^[9]

• Transcendental arguments
• Christian apologetics
• Argument from morality

Notes

• Derrida, Van Til and the Metaphysics of Postmodernism An appraisal of Postmodernism, specifically Deconstruction, in light of Van Til by Jacob Gabriel Hale.

• "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" Audio (listen/download format) of a formal debate between Christian Greg Bahnsen and skeptic Gordon Stein from the University of California, Irvine.
• "The Verdict Is In: Assessment of the 1985 Bahnsen-Stein Debate, 'Does God Exist?'" Video (watch/download format) of the Bahnsen-Stein debate, beginning with a technical and rhetorical assessment of Bahnsen's opening statement in which he defends his transcendental argument for God's existence.
• The Martin-Frame Debate A written debate between skeptic Michael Martin and Christian John Frame about the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
• The Drange-Wilson Debate A written debate between skeptic Theodore Drange and Christian Douglas Wilson.
• "Is Non-Christian Thought Futile?" A written debate between Christian Doug Jones and skeptics Keith Parsons and Michael Martin in Antithesis magazine (vol. 2, no. 4).