By Joshua F. Walker
There are many arguments that are presented today that are designed to “prove” the existence of God. These arguments range from the cosmological argument, to the teleological argument, to the ontological argument. But if one of these arguments “proved” the existence of God we should only need that argument to prove that the Christian God exists. After all one argument that proves its conclusion is sufficient to show that the conclusion is true. Why then do the “Classical” apologists use so many arguments that “prove” the existence of God? As Immanuel Kant puts it:
If, therefore, we observe the dogmatists [Classical apologists] coming forward with ten proofs, we can be quite sure that he really has none. For had he one that yielded…apodictic proof, what need would he have of others.[1]
Kant’s criticisms, against the classical arguments, lead Cornelius Van Til to develop an argument that, not only proves the existence of a god in general—like the classical arguments do—but the Christian God (hereafter “God”). This argument is called the transcendental argument for the existence of God. The transcendental argument will be the focus of this paper. Our goal is to state the argument and defend it against its critics.
II.
The Transcendental Argument
for the existence of God[2]
Simply put the transcendental argument sets out to show the impossibility of the contrary to Christianity. In other words, any worldview that is not Christian will yield absurd conclusions. The transcendental argument does this by discovering the preconditions of human experience. This is done by taking some aspect of human experience and seeing what must be true in order for that experience to even be possible. Transcendental arguments tend to have the following form. For x (some aspect of human experience like the laws of logic) 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. In syllogistic form it would be:
1) In order for x to be the case, y must be the case
2) x is the case
3) Therefore y is the case
Or put into practice:
4) In order for the laws of logic to be possible, God has to exist.
5) The laws of logic exist
6) Therefore God exists.
This could be done with a number of human experiences such as causation, predication, language and so on. Michael Butler puts it this way:
[The transcendental argument for the existence of God] starts with human experience—such things as science, love, rationality, and moral duties. It then asserts that the existence of the Christian God is the necessary precondition of such experience. Finally, it proves this indirectly by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary.[3]
To see the transcendental argument in action, let us consider a person who says, “I do not believe in God.” What does this statement presuppose and can the non-Christian worldview handle these presuppositions?[4] First, it presupposes that the individual who is making this statement exists—the “I”. There are many worldviews that claim to be able to handle the claim of existence[5] (i.e. why does something exist rather then nothing), but the only ones that are adequate are theistic worldviews: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. We have already narrowed down the worldview that can handle this statement to three. Second, “believe” presupposes that the person making this claim believes that they have a valid Epistemology (the way we know things). This is due to the fact that God, and God alone, has omniscience and He is the only being in the entire world that can have certainty in and of Himself. When God tells us something, since He is certain, we can be certain—but not in and of ourselves. The only way we can be sure or certain we know anything is if it is told to us by God via general and specific revelation[6]. Again only a theistic worldview can handle this assumption. Third, this statement assumes that the laws of logic are universal. The person who makes this statement does not mean, “I do believe in God.” They mean what they said. They use the law of non-contradiction and expect the hearer to as well. The only worldview that can handle this assumption is Christianity. In John’s Gospel he says that God is logic.[7] No other worldview makes a claim that God is logic. Finally, this statement presupposes the reliability of language. Only Christianity can handle this presupposition, due to the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is what makes communication reliable. This is the case because we, as Christians, can show that communication was happening before the foundation of the world and thus we can know that communication works. Before God created there was communication (the reliability of language) within the Godhead. The other two worldviews cannot handle the reliability of language. In addition, even if this section fails to show how the non-Christian worldview can handle these presuppositions, the non-Christian worldview must be able to show that they can handle all the presuppositions of the view. There are many other assumptions that this statement presupposes, but even given these four the non-Christian worldview cannot handle them.
The transcendental argument has also been put in a negative and a positive form:
1) If God does not exist, then the world[8] is unintelligible.
2) God does not exist
3) Therefore, the world is unintelligible
This conclusion flows from the premises by Modus Ponens. This negative formulation of the transcendental argument shows that God must exist. How? If the conclusion of this syllogism is correct then the syllogism would make no sense, but how can you argue with out making sense. That is, since this syllogism does make sense one of the promises must be wrong. Here is where the positive formulation of the transcendental argument comes in:
1) If the world is intelligible, then God exists.
2) The world is intelligible[9].
3) Therefore God exists.[10]
Again this conclusion flows from the premises by Modus Ponens. The above section (the section dealing with presuppositions) shows that the first premise is true and the negative transcendental argument shows that the second premise is true. That means that God must exist.
The transcendental argument is a powerful argument for the Christian God’s existence. If valid it can show that the only way to make sense of reality is to believe in the Christian God and it also shows that the non-Christian is deceiving himself when he says he does not believe in Christianity.[11] It has been said that the only way a non-Christian can slap God in the face is by sitting in His lap. The transcendental argument shows this analogy to be true with respect to slapping God intellectually. The only way to deny God is to use (affirm) God. There are several objections leveled against the transcendental argument for the existence of God. We now turn to these objections and will show that they are not effective in refuting the transcendental argument.
III.
Objections Raised
Against the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Ever since Van Til formulated the transcendental argument for God’s existence people have been criticizing it. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the transcendental argument stands on a strong Reformed interpretation of Scripture and this view of Scripture has not always been a popular view. Another reason for the critiques is that Van Til, along with others, have claimed that the classical arguments are not sound arguments. The people that used these arguments felt that they had to then in turn attack the transcendental argument. There have been countless numbers of objections offered against transcendental argument, but these objections fall into four broader objections 1) the nature of the transcendental argument; 2) the uniqueness proof for the conclusion of the transcendental argument; 3) the mere sufficiency of the Christian worldview; 4) the move from the conceptual necessity to the actual necessity of God.
1. The Nature of Transcendental
Argument
The first place of contention with the transcendental argument is with the nature of the transcendental argument itself. Many have said that the transcendental argument is not a unique argument form but is reducible to the classical arguments. John Frame is one who has been a leading proponent of this criticism.[12] He has this to say:
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[13], 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.[14]
The question before us is this: Is the classical cosmological argument a version of the transcendental argument? In other words, was Van Til right about the uniqueness of the transcendental argument, or is Frame right that the transcendental argument is another form of the classical arguments?
By way of reminder, the transcendental argument, simply put is: For x (some aspect of human experience like causation) 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. For causation to be possible, God has to exist since God is the precondition for causation. Since there is causation, God exists. This would be a transcendental argument for the existence of God, based on causation.
Does the classical cosmological argument take this form? If it does, then Van Til is wrong and Frame is right. If it does not then Frame is wrong and the transcendental argument is still a valid argument. The basic cosmological argument is as follows. 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is known as the law of causality or the principle of causation. 2) The universe had a beginning. This is either proven by appeals to scientific facts such as the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics or by appeals to philosophy such as showing that it is impossible to have an infinite set of moments in time. 3) Therefore the universe has a cause, this cause is said to be God.
Notice that the classical cosmological argument says nothing about the preconditions for causation is God. Instead, is presumes that the non-Christian is perfectly justified in holding to causation. The non-Christian may not have thought through all the implications of causation (namely that God must be the first cause) but this does not mean he cannot make sense of causation. If fact, by appealing to causation the Christian reaffirms the non-Christian’s belief in causation. The classical cosmological argument says nothing to the fact that in order for the non-Christian to have any grounds for holding to causation they must believe in God. Instead, it assumes that the non-Christians worldview can account for and give justification for the non-Christians use of causation. Thus, even if the classical cosmological argument is sound, the non-Christians is completely reasonable in holding to and using the law of causation. Whereas, if the transcendental argument is sound the non-Christian cannot use and hold to the law of causation and still be consistent. The very fact that the non-Christian uses the law of causation shows that he is borrowing from the Christian worldview.
After a careful look at both the transcendental argument and the classical argument for the existence of God, we see that the transcendental argument takes a drastically different approach than the classical arguments. Thus, Van Til was right in claming that the transcendental argument was a unique argument and Frame is wrong in saying that the transcendental argument is just another form of the classical arguments. Contrary to what Frame thinks, the classical arguments do not have transcendental conclusions. They may have concluded that God is the transcendental cause of the universe, but this is vastly different from concluding that God’s existence is transcendental. That is to say that the former says that God is just the cause of the universe, the latter states that God is transcendent over all, including our reasoning. In one of Van Til’s most famous works, Why I Believe in God he states this difference
I must make an apology to you at this point. We who believe in God have not always made this position plain. Often enough we have talked with you about facts and sound reasons as though we agreed with you on what these really are. In our arguments for the existence of God we have frequently assumed that you and we together have an area of knowledge on which we agree. But we really do not grant that you see any fact in any dimension of life truly. We really think you have colored glasses on your nose when you talk about chickens and cows, as well as when you talk about the life hereafter. We should have told you this more plainly than we did. But we were really a little ashamed of what would appear to you as a very odd or extreme position. We were so anxious not to offend you that we offended our own God. But we dare no longer present our God to you as smaller or less exacting than He really is. He wants to be presented as the All-Conditioner, as the emplacement on which even those who deny Him must stand.[15]
2. The Uniqueness
Proof for the Conclusion of Transcendental Argument[16]
Another criticism that has been leveled against the transcendental argument is that the conclusion, God exists, does not necessarily follow from the premises. This criticism can be constructed this way: It can be the last option of the non-Christian who has just been shown that his own worldview is impossible and that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can handle the totality of human experience. The non-Christian may say, “Yes, Christianity can account for human experience, but there may be another worldview out there that can also provide for human experience.”
Nevertheless, people argue about actual worldviews, not potential ones. If the Christian worldview can account for all of human experience and, say, Buddhism or Islam is unable to, it is of no value for the Buddhist or Muslim to say there might be a worldview out there besides Christianity that can account for human experience. An analogy might be useful at this point. Assume that a hockey player, say Wayne Gretsky, beats all worthy opponents at one-on-one hockey. Could he not justly say he is the best hockey player? Someone might say to him, “You are not the best hockey player.” What would Gretsky say to this? Rightly, he could say, “Bring on someone better!” The person who said he was not the best would then have to present the opponent to Gretsky or he/she would have to admit that Gretsky was the best. The theoretical possibility that there might be a person out there better then him does not concern him. In the world of sports it is not who is theoretically the best, but who is actually the best. The same is true in the realm of worldviews. It is not a theoretical (and by theoretical we mean just worldview x with no specifications, because once a worldview is given specifications it is no longer a theoretical worldview, but an actual worldview) worldview that matters but actual ones.
While this criticism is of no practical value to the non-Christian, it is still a serious criticism of the transcendental argument, if correct. The reason for this should be plain: If there is an infinite number of worldviews and the transcendental argument only handles a small portion of them then the transcendental argument fails at showing the necessity of Christianity as the precondition for all human experience. Even if the transcendental argument could show that all actual worldviews are absurd, it does not follow that all possible worldviews are likewise absurd. This leads us into criticism 3, which is much in the same vein as 2, so as we handle the next objection (3) this objection (2) will go as well.
3. The Mere Sufficiency
of the Christian Worldview
Another criticism of the transcendental argument is that it demonstrates the sufficiency of the Christian worldview to account for human experience, but it does not demonstrate the necessity of the Christian worldview. In order to handle this objection we must keep in mind that the transcendental argument does not set out to refute an indefinite or infinite number of worldviews. More accurately, the proof is designed to refute the negation of the Christian worldview. The transcendental argument subjects all non-Christian worldviews to an internal critique and shows that it internally contradicts and that the non-Christian worldview cannot supply all the preconditions of human experience. In other words, the transcendental argument does not have to refute an infinite number of worldviews; it only has to show that non-Christian is impossible. If the Christian worldview is A, then all other worldviews would be ~A. All the Christian needs to do is show that ~A is impossible. In syllogistic form it is:
1) Either A or ~A or (A v ~A)
2) ~~A (not ~A) or ~(~A)
3) Therefore A
As one can see, the transcendental argument does not have to show that an infinite number of worldviews is impossible all they have to show is that ~A is impossible. To show that an infinite number of worldview is impossible would be like this: Buddhism is B, Judaism is C, Pantheism is D…n. Then in syllogistic form it would be:
4) Either A or B
5) ~B
6) Therefore A
This form of argumentation leaves the transcendental argument open to the above critiques, but the first form of the transcendental argument does not. The transcendental argument only needs to show that premises 1 and 2 are the case. This means that criticisms 2 and 3 fail because they misunderstand the nature of the transcendental argument and what it is trying to do.
4. The Move from the
Conceptual Necessity to the Actual Necessity of God.[17]
The final objection that is (usually) raised against the transcendental argument is the most uncommon, but the fact that this objection is not used a lot does not in anyway affect its merits. This is the most powerful and hardest objection to answer. This objection goes as follows: By proving the conceptual necessity of a worldview does not prove its ontological (or actual) reality. In other words, just because one can show that the Christian worldview is conceptually necessary does not mean that it is actually the way reality is. The challenge to the transcendental argument is this: to bridge the gap between having to believe the Christian worldview because it provides the necessary preconditions of human experience and showing that the Christian worldview is true. It is true that on the conceptual level the Christian worldview cannot make the jump from conceptual necessity to actual necessity, but at the core of the Christian worldview is the belief in a God who is creator and revealer. Although on the conceptual level the Christian worldview cannot make the jump, God can. God has reveled Himself and has shown us that He is real, in actuality. On the basis of His revelation—which is part of the Christian worldview—which is itself a necessary precondition of experience, we can know truths about the world and God. That means that we can bridge the gap between having to believe the Christian worldview because it provides the necessary preconditions of human experience and showing that the Christian worldview is true. Since we can bridge that gap this objection, like the rest, falls short of refuting the transcendental argument.
When Van Til set forth the transcendental argument for the existence of the Christian God—not just any god in general—he provided a powerful tool for the Christian faith. As we have shown, even though there have been many charges raised against the transcendental argument, it still stands as the one proof for the Christian faith. It does what it sets out to do, namely, to show that the Christian worldview is the precondition of all human knowledge and experience and that without the Christian worldview life is meaningless.
[1] Michael Butler, “The TranscendentalArgument for the Existence of God”, in The Standard Bearer, ed. Steven Schilssel (Covenant Media Press, 2002), p. 64
[2] The author is indebted to the writings of Michael Butler and Greg Bahnsen for most of this section.
[3] Michael Butler, “The TranscendentalArgument for the Existence of God”, in The Standard Bearer, ed. Steven Schilssel (Covenant Media Press, 2002), p. 76
[4] This is not an exhaustive list of presuppositions, but a small sample of the things this statement presupposes.
[5] As far as the author is concerned the only worldview that can handle the statement, “I exist” is a theistic worldview. They are many great works that show that the only cosmology that works is theism.
[6] Please do not misunderstand, we are not saying that general revelation can be understood complete by us, but if it could we would have warrant to be certain.
[7] Gordon Clark, Introduction to Christian Philosophy, (The Trinity Foundation, 1993) p. 67. Clark translates John 1:1, “In the beginning was Logic, Logic was with God and Logic was God.”
[8] By “world” we mean everything that exists.
[9] By “the world is intelligible” we mean we are able to make sense out of the world.
[10] John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1995) p. 318
[11] See Greg
Bahnsen, “A Conditional Resolution of Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception”
(Ph.D. diss, University of Southern California, 1978).
[12] John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1994)
[13] Here Frame is referring to the “Classical” cosmological argument:
1) Everything that had a beginning needs a cause
2) The universe had a beginning
3) Therefore the universe needs a cause. (i.e. God)
[14] John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, p. 371
[15] Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God p. 8
[16] The most famous critique in this vain is offered by John W. Montgomery in, “Once upon an A Priori…” in Jerusalem and Athens, Geehan, p. 380-91
[17] This objection is raised by David P. Hoover in his article, “For the Sake of Argument” (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, n.d).