Jump to content

Transcendental argument for the existence of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlink2 (talk | contribs) at 03:36, 29 November 2022 (→Reception: Adding archives WP:LINKROT). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Transcendental argument" redirects here. For arguments that deduce conclusions from some accepted aspect of experience, see Transcendental arguments.

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a supreme being and that 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]

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:[5]

  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.[6][disputed (for: Citation of Dubious Credibility)  – discuss] Another issue pointed out is that it is not needed to have a god to have logic or morality.[7] In particular the existence of multiple logic systems with differing axioms such as non-classical logic[8] as well as multiple radically different moral systems[9][10][11][12] 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. [citation needed] It is worth noting however that Gödel also produced a classical propositional proof of god in Gödel's ontological proof.

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. ^ 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.[page needed]
  6. ^ Atheist, Friendly. "Responding to the Most Common Arguments for God's Existence". Friendly Atheist. Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  7. ^ Examined, Cross (2013-12-09). "A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (3 of 3)". Cross Examined. Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  8. ^ Ciabattoni, Agata. "Non-classical Logics: Theory, Applications and Tools" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-08-27.
  9. ^ 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
  10. ^ 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
  11. ^ 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
  12. ^ 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
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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God&oldid=1124519135"