What is the transcendental argument for the existence of God?

Answer

The transcendental argument for the existence of God aims to demonstrate God’s existence by asserting that logic, morals, and science fundamentally rely on the theistic worldview, with God’s transcendent nature serving as the basis for logic and morals. This argument contends that without God’s existence, proving anything becomes impossible because, in an atheistic context, universal laws cannot be justified or explained.

Deductive reasoning is built upon the laws of logic. But what upholds these laws of logic? For Christians and other theists, there exists a transcendent standard for reasoning. When the laws of logic are reduced to mere material entities, they lose their essential nature as laws. However, the laws of logic are not material; they have universal and timeless applicability. These laws are dependent on God’s unchanging essence and are crucial for deductive reasoning. God’s constancy, supremacy, transcendence, and immateriality form the basis of the laws of logic. Therefore, rational thinking would be unattainable without the biblical God.

An atheist might argue, “I can use logic, and I am an atheist.” Yet, this argument lacks logic. Logical reasoning necessitates the presence of a transcendent and immaterial God, not just a professed belief in Him. While an atheist can engage in reasoning, within their worldview, this reasoning lacks a rational foundation.

If the laws of logic are considered human constructs, then various cultures could adopt different sets of logical laws. Consequently, these laws would not be universal. Rational discourse would be hindered if logic were subjective, as conflicting parties could adhere to distinct logical frameworks, each deeming themselves correct based on their arbitrary standards.

Should the atheist claim that the laws of logic are merely

The product of electrochemical impulses in the brain, then the laws of logic cannot be regarded as universal. What happens inside your brain cannot be considered a law, for it does not necessarily correspond to what happens in another person’s brain. In other words, we could not argue that logical contradictions cannot occur in a distant galaxy, distinct from conscious observers.

One common response is, “We can use the laws of logic because they have been observed to work.” However, this is to miss the point. All agree that the laws of logic work, but they work because they are true. The real issue is, how can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? Moreover, the appeal to the past to make such deductions concerning the way matter will behave in the future— from the materialistic point of view— is circular. Indeed, in the past, matter has conformed to uniformity. But how can one know that uniformity will persist in the future unless one has already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e., uniformity)? To use one’s past experience as a premise upon which to build one’s expectations for the future is to presuppose uniformity and logic. Thus, when the atheist claims to believe that there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he is trying to justify uniformity by presupposing uniformity, which is to argue in a circle.

To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a theistic framework. Atheists have access to the laws of logic, but they have no foundation upon which to base their deductive reasoning within their own paradigm.