Exposition of a Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

     This is going to by first attempt to lay out in writing a formal argument for the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) as proposed by the Christian faith in a Van Tillian manner. The problem and challenge for this is relating to the fact that Cornelius Van Til never viewed it as a formal or direct argument, but mores one of indirect proof. In Defense of the Faith [4th Ed.], Van Til stated that the "method of reasoning by presupposition may be said to be indirect rather than direct" (pg. 122). In this manner, Van Til establishes that the argument essentially doesn't rely on using a syllogism to present the argument, but it aims to refute that the non-Christian cannot account for their worldview without having to borrow from the Christian one in order to sustain their claims. This can be difficult to simply state this and yet prove it at the same time.

    Some have tried to negate they need to prove this claim for TAG, despite the one arguing for TAG having the burden of proof in the claim. I will aim to present a form of the argument that was once created by Chris of Doulos Theology, who deserves the proper credit for coming up with this particular formulation. I have also used this in my debates with Mohammed Abd Al-Razack on Christianity vs Islam as well as in my debate with SkepticNikki back then.

    While I aim to present a good case, I will do so with the original formulation in mind and expound upon each premise of the argument in the hopes that I can faithfully defend each point. We must get rid of an objection common to these points and we will eventually get to each one. However, we shall start with the premises themselves and the conclusion before the exposition. Let us begin with the formula:

P1: If intelligibility did not exist, we would not be able to argue that intelligibility does not exist

P2: Intelligibility exists

P3: Christianity exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility

P4: Any deviation whatsoever from Christianity no longer exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility

P5: If intelligibility is true, Christianity is true

Conclusion: Christianity is true

    We shall now explore the premises with the considerations. First however, we must deal with the accusation and charge of circular reasoning. I will address it by pointing out what Van Til says on this manner. In Christian Apologetics [2nd Ed.], we read the following quote in the syllabus of this theologian: "To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another" (p. 130). We must know that we are dealing with discussions of worldviews, which deals with certain presuppositions in mind for a position that ultimately begins our assessment of reality. If a presupposition leads to some form of a problematic or fallacious reasoning at it's core, then the presupposition must not be considered any further unless it can answer the objections.

    Premise 1 begins with the idea that "if intelligibility did not exist, we would not be able to argue that intelligibility does not exist." We must define intelligibility. According to Merriam-Webster's, intelligible means "capable of being understood or comprehended" as well as "apprehensible by the intellect only." According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, intelligibility means "the quality of being possible to understand." So when discussing the question of intelligibility, we are discussing that which can be comprehended. Which means that if the ability to comprehend things or understand them does not exist, we wouldn't be able to argue that they do not exist since this presupposes language which requires our comprehension of this fact. This first premise does not seem all that controversial and can be agreed by many.

    Premise 2 then logically follows in the result that "intelligibility exists," which is proven in the fact that we comprehend things and thus there are intelligible statements, facts or truths in this world. Even the words on this blog post presuppose and thus demonstrate intelligibility exists since you need to comprehend the words in order to be able to understand the message I am relaying. If I do not come across as being understood, then this also presupposes a measure in which there is a way to be understood or comprehended, otherwise it is useless to say that something "cannot be understood at the moment" without referring to some measurement of what it means to comprehend or understand.

    Premise 3 gets into the spicy territory as we enter the premise that says "Christianity exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility." We must understand that we haven't really proven Christianity here yet, but simply stating that Christianity does provide the grounds and answers for intelligibility. Christianity is able to provide these in light of the Triune God, which serves as a means to wrestle with the problem of the one and the many. To explain the problem, Bosserman provides the following comment:

“Properly speaking, the one-many problem pertains to how universals may overlap with historical particulars. But in its broadest import, the one-many problem lies at the base of questions concerning how subjects may intelligibly relate to objects; governments and citizens may live together harmoniously; ethical norms may be relevant to diverse situations; etc.” (B. A. Bosserman, “The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox” [p. xix])

    So far, we see that the question is very complex. Ultimately just dealing with matters of explaining unity among diversity in such a way that it is reasonable. I will deal with this problem in a future post, but until then I shall wrestle with the Christian solution. Van Til gives us this as a solution from the 2nd edition of Introduction to Systematic Theology:

“As Christians, we hold that in this universe we deal with a derivative one and many, which can be brought into fruitful relation with one another because, back of both, we have in God the original One and Many. If we are to have coherence in our experience, there must be a correspondence of our experience to the eternally coherent experience of God. Human knowledge ultimately rests upon the internal coherence within the Godhead; our knowledge rests upon the ontological Trinity as its presupposition.” (Cornelius Van Til, “An Introduction to Systematic Theology" [p. 59])

    Premise 4 then makes the controversial claim that "any deviation whatsoever from Christianity no longer exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility." We argue that the Christian worldview can provide the grounds, but what about the non-Christian ones? I would argue that depending on who you are, each non-Christian view boils down to either elevating the One over the Many, which leads to a problem. How can one account for diversity among the creatures or things if we begin with absolute unity or oneness among them. How do we distinguish between various types of dogs, horses, automobiles, etc. with the idea of absolute unity among these.

    If reality is basically a single great monism, it is impossible for us to know it in principle, because it would be impossible for us to distinguish it from anything else. Furthermore, any distinctions that we make within this monism will necessarily be imposed upon reality rather than derived from it. In such a case, our knowledge would have no meaningful or intelligible relation to states of affairs in as they really are.

    Consider the Many over One solution, this results in a chaotic anarchy of no equality at that point because diversity is what matters instead over unity. If we posit that reality is basically an amalgam of many things, we are in no better position. It would be impossible to know anything in principle because nothing in reality could be related to any other thing in reality unless we impose a false unity and similarity upon these two objectively unrelated things. Once again, knowledge, which depends on generalities and categories, would be impossible, for any purported knowledge would have as its content an alien unity imposed post hoc on reality as it really is.

    So we can then argue for the case of the Triune God from this as a point for Christianity in light of the one and many being accounted for by a triune God, but it would not be able to be consistently argued for the non-Christian. Some have attempted to argue for the equal ultimacy of the one and the many, but will ultimately have to rely on Christian principles to do so and thus borrow from the Christian worldview. I would find this to be sufficient reason to valid Premise 4.

    Premise 5 then follows with "If intelligibility is true, Christianity is true" and thus the logical conclusion of the premises follows which states that "Christianity is true." This is by no means a perfect argument and could use improvements as well as needs to be expounded upon in debates with particular worldviews. However, I do believe it is a nice starting point that all Christian debaters using the argument can go for. Especially in what can be expounded upon to make each version of this TAG case unique.

    Do I believe it is the definitive smoking gun argument, no. I think it is one that is fallible and prone to have some potential criticisms that are fair, but so far is my most favorite argument possible for the existence of the Christian God as opposed to a general theistic perception of God. I do hope that this article can begin a discussion on the topic as well as encourage others to sharpen their own similar arguments for the Triune God of Christianity.