TAG: The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

Table of Contents

**Deep in Thought.** Since time immemorial, the existence of God has been at the forefront of mankind’s thoughts. However, not even in principle can direct conclusive proof be obtained from our level of existence. Nonetheless, we can argue for the impossibility of our common reality to exist in case a particular type of God did not. For example, what are the pre-conditions that make knowledge possible? The Transcendental Argument follows this line of reasoning.

1. Introduction

Summarizing our whole journey up to this point in this website (principally the introductory and main articles on Symbolism, Metaphysics and Worldviews), we have:

• Seen that every person is an unknowing metaphysician, since our lives are guided unavoidably by our metaphysical presuppositions and beliefs, in a more or less conscious way.

• Identified an ubiquitous and abnormally high presence of ancient symbolism and metaphysical narratives in all types of popular culture and mass media. This tendency has been shown to be consistent in time, with a time span of decades, and is progressively becoming more prominent.

• Studied the nature and main functions of symbolism. Including its main one: to initiate a person in metaphysical doctrines that due to their transcendental and unfathomable nature are better transmitted through symbols. They are also used to conceal these truths from unprepared eyes.

• Reviewed the main metaphysical categories and doctrines taught in traditional worldviews. With special emphasis placed on the solutions given to the problem of the One and the Many, the central question in all religious, mystical, esoteric or philosophical thought. We have seen that this solution, in turn, has important and unavoidable implications for our metaphysical beliefs in other areas, such as: cosmology, time, the existence and nature of evil, the dialectical tension between determinism and free will and the possibility of salvation (what it means to be saved and how to achieve it).

• Compared the main worldviews available to us today and their constituent metaphysical building blocks. We found that most living worldviews can be divided between proponents of the doctrine of the One (absolute Monism, usually in the form of Pantheism/Panentheism, but also as strict Monotheism) or as transcending the dialectical problem of the One and the Many (Christian Trinitarian God and certain Buddhist interpretations of Non-Dualism).

• Showed that the symbolism and metaphysical teachings present in modern popular culture comes from only a few recurrent worldviews. Most notably Kabbalah, Hermeticism/Alchemy, Gnosticism and Eastern mysticism / Western esotericism. We have seen that, deep down, these worldviews share most of the key metaphysical building blocks that conform them.

The first four points mentioned above are analytical, and involve the study of the constituent parts of the problem at hand and their implications (“the trees”). The last two are synthetic, and involve comparing the worldviews that contain these parts and looking at the big picture from a higher vantage point thanks to the knowledge previously gained (“the forest”).

Now, we finally find ourselves in a position that will allow us to draw our own conclusions and position ourselves regarding the main problem at hand and the driving question of this website: how can we find our way in this complex world so full of conflicting worldviews?

2. First Stage, or the Challenge of the Atheist: Why Believe in Any Non-Materialist Worldview?

But before engaging in further discussions, let´s first tackle the crucial question that many of us, raised in a secular culture and educational system, ask ourselves at the beginning of our journey: why should I abandon the scientist dogma of pure materialism that has been taught to me since childhood? Is there any proof regarding the existence of any non-material reality?

First of all, we have to understand that all human knowledge, including scientific and philosophical knowledge (science was first named “Natural Philosophy”), depends at some point on a set of unchallenged assumptions that we have decided that are truly obvious and cannot be refuted (Axioms). In other words, all knowledge presupposes a previous step of faith in the axioms that support it.

In the case of science, we have to presuppose, among other things, the existence of deterministic abstract non-material laws of physics. In their absence, all observations would be a mere collection of unrelated data.

Second, we have to accept that, for us, it is impossible to attain by mere deduction an absolutely unobjectionable logical proof of the certainty of the truth of any worldview. If that were the case, no plurality of worldviews would exist, as it would be simple to show everyone the fact that one worldview is true and the rest are false, therefore killing all other worldviews on the spot. It would also imply the lack of free will to self-determine who we are, since a logical demonstration would suffice for everyone to be compelled or “forced” to believe and follow that worldview, even if they do not like it.¹

Therefore, the most that mankind can achieve by mere reason alone is to adopt a self-consistent position that is compatible with all known facts and our own experience. At first, it may seem like this is a meagre reward for all our worries and dedication but, as we will see, the presence of internal contradictions is commonplace and can be useful in narrowing down the list of worldviews to consider.

2.1. Presuppositions Shape our Worldview

This approach, called Presuppositionalism and usually employed by Christian apologetics, has been used to compare and contrast the self-consistency of pure materialistic Monism with worldviews that, instead, posit a spiritual ultimate reality (in most cases, the Christian Tri-Une God).

It is an epistemological approach based on the examination of the presuppositions and axioms of each worldview and the logical deduction of their implications and possible inconsistencies. It claims that the chosen presuppositions of each worldview are central to its interpretation of reality, since one could not make sense of human experience without them.

This links with the fact, mentioned before, that we are all unknowing metaphysicians. We all make a choice by selecting the set of “obvious” truths that serve as the axiomatic ground from where the different worldviews we later follow can, or cannot, take root.

Image 1. Photograph of Cornelius Van Til, Christian theologian, credited as the originator of modern presuppositional apologetics.

Therefore, in a certain sense, by choosing the axioms that will determine which worldviews are compatible with us, we are defining who we are. We are birthing ourselves. ²

This transcendental approach, considered to be the argument against materialism most difficult to refute, contrasts with the classical and evidential apologetical approach, which tries to show the existence of God from our level of reality through God´s immanence.

Image 2. Picture of Greg Bahnsen, popular teacher and debater on presuppositional apologetics.

Its most famous exponents were the theologian Cornelius Van Til and the minister Greg Bahnsen, who popularized this approach through well-known public debates against atheists.

The argument used in these debates is called the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG), a previous version of which was formulated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant through his work The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.

2.2. The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG)

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) states that the very possibility of existence of abstract absolutes such as logic and morals, which we take for granted, ultimately presupposes a non-material ultimate reality.

The argument, using logic as an example, is structured as follows³:

Proposition 1: Logical absolutes (e.g., laws of logic) exist.
P2: Logical absolutes are conceptual.
P3: Concepts are not material (they are mental), but are nevertheless real
universals.
P4: Logical absolutes would exist even if our minds did not.
P5: Therefore logical absolutes are transcendent.
P6: Since logical absolutes are transcendent and conceptual, they must exist in a transcendent mind.
P7: This transcendent mind is what we recognize as God.
Conclusion: God exists. He is the necessary precondition for logic and all abstract and immaterial universal realities which could not exist in a purely materialist Universe. God, therefore, is the missing link between the objects of experience (brute facts of sense experience) and the subject of that knowledge.

The fact that the presuppositions of pure materialism alone make it impossible to justify the proven fact of logical thinking (let alone the possibility of having a rational debate on these matters), proves it as a self-contradictory worldview. Therefore, contrary worldviews that defend a non-material aspect of reality have to be true. As Van Til stated⁴:

“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.”

As he further pointed out, trying to explain human rationality on the basis of an ultimately irrational Universe is “like a man made of water, trying to escape an infinite sea of water on a ladder of water”.⁵

EPISTEMIC DISTANCE [Click Here]

How would clear evidence about the existence of God impact our capacity to have free will? Which worldviews are coherent with this fact?

As previously mentioned, the lack of an univocal logical proof that compels us to believe in a certain worldview to the exclusion of every other one is an important aspect in us having free will. This fact, in itself, is also a metaphysical statement that can be compared to the doctrines in this regard taught by different worldviews.

For example: is this perceived Epistemic Distance or discontinuity between God and ourselves something that a worldview that believes in the theory of emanations can explain? Why would that epistemic discontinuity exist in such a view, which is based on the ultimate identity of all reality in the One and in the absence of any such ontological discontinuity between any level of reality?⁶

In contrast, is not this possibility of defining ourselves in this regard, which allows us to even reject the existence of God, coherent and compatible with the revelations of theistic religions (being an important point of, for example, the Christian Gospel)?

Furthermore, is this epistemic distance and its consequent free will equally consistent with all monotheistic faiths, including the ones that state that the will of God is absolute (Fatalism) and He alone decides who is saved and who is damned (e.g., Islam)? Which worldviews are consistent with this notion and which are not?

2.3. TAG´s Criticism: Rejection of Theism, But Not Necessarily of Non-Materialism

Some critics have stated that certain logic systems like classical propositional logic can be justified through theorems like Gödel’s completeness theorem, hence avoiding the need for God´s existence.

This argument fails to take into consideration, however, that a mathematical law or principle is just another immaterial universal. Therefore, their existence also undermines pure materialism. Furthermore, the theorem´s discoverer himself (the famous mathematician Kurt Gödel), also produced a classical propositional proof of God´s existence in Gödel’s ontological proof.

This all boils down to the fact that many of TAG´s critics, instead of arguing against Non-Materialism, are arguing against Theism instead. Non-material realities may exist, but it is the existence of a personal God which is being fought against.

This is clearly stated by another main criticism that states that TAG is not really a defense of Theism but an argument against Materialism, with other atheist (or impersonal) spiritual worldviews (e.g., Platonism and its world of ideas or abstract universals that eventually trace back their existence to the One of Parmenides) being also possible solutions.

To begin with, it is enough to consider that the Transcendental Argument plays in favour of all non-materialist worldviews. In later articles, however, we will analyze why these worldviews are not equivalent to each other and learn how to evaluate them.

Notes

We will analyze the metaphysical implications of this statement at the end of this section, since it may serve as another hint in our journey.
It is interesting to note that this notion that reality functions in a way that compels us to define ourselves through “axiom choice”, in itself, cannot be accounted for in purely materialistic paradigms.
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.
Van Til, C. (1969). A Survey of Christian Epistemology. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, p. 204.
Van Til, C. (1975). Christian Apologetics. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, p. 63.
In order to explain this, some worldviews based on the One, like Advaita Vedanta, had to defend the existence of a secondary power of ignorance (Illusion, Maya). This power, whose origin is not clearly explained, is the one in charge of veiling our ultimate identity with Brahman (impersonal God).
However, by positing a secondary principle different and in conflict with ultimate reality (defined as Truth), they re-instated again another version of dialectical Dualism. This problem, which Advaita has not been able to satisfactorily resolve, was pointed out by “rival” schools such as the “theistic” Kashmir (or Trika) Shaivism.

OUROBOROS: Circularity, Complementarity and Absolute Oneness

GOTTHARD BASE TUNNEL INAUGURATION CEREMONY: Neopaganism in High Places

SEEKERS INTO THE MYSTERY: DC Comics Initiation Manual

PERSONA SERIES: Gnostic Rebellion and the Quest for Jungian Apotheosis

The Metaphysics of Gameplay: Death and Rebirth as Spiritual Growth