What Is The Transcendental Argument For God’S Existence?

The Transcendental Argument attempts to prove that God’s existence is neces sary for explaining the presence of logic and morals. It was developed in its most popular and influential form in the 1920s by philosopher Cornelius Van Til. The Transcendental Argument for God (or the TAG) is unique because instead of arguing for God, it argues from God. The idea behind it is that all the facts that can be known through the use of logic, morality, and universals have God as their necessary precondition. That, the TAG asserts, is why the Bible says ‘”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Pr 1:7). God is the starting point of the TAG argument, as well as its conclusion. For that reason, it is also called Presuppositionalism.

The Transcendental Argument tries to solve two problems in traditional apologetics. First, because traditional arguments are probability arguments, they take a fact or feature of the world and show that the best explanation for it is God. But how can a God whose existence is necessary be only probably true? And worse, if we speak of God’s existence in probabilities, then that means there is a chance God does not exist. How can a necessary God have any chance of not existing? By speaking to unbelievers using probability language, apologists may inadvertently give them a reason not to believe.

The second problem with traditional arguments is that they are often stated in a way that treats the unbeliever as if he can stand on neutral ground and weigh the evidence for whether God exists or not by using reason. But if the God in question really does exist, then there is no such thing as neutral ground where he is concerned. Nothing exists outside of God that he did not create under his sovereign control. Also, the argument treats the unbeliever as if God is not the source of the ways we know and evaluate things. Logic, morality, and universals are not neutral tools that everyone simply has without needing to account for them. They, too, have a necessary precondition for their existence and usefulness. To let unbelievers use these tools without accounting for them within their own worldviews is to give up the whole argument.

The TAG is not a specific argument, but rather it is a philosophy for how to argue. All the classical and evidential arguments can be articulated by those who hold to the TAG. It is not anti-evidential; it just frames the evidence in a way that doesn’t leave the unbeliever any wiggle room. Think about it: When an unbeliever says, “God does not exist,” he has made a logical statement using universals. But how does that unbeliever then explain the laws of logic or philosophical universals? He cannot. He must borrow those tools from the Christian worldview. To say, “God does not exist,” therefore, actually proves that he does! That is the power of the TAG.