The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

Hi, my name is Matt Slick and welcome to the Karmancer Desk. Christians often have to face various challenges to their faith. One of the most daunting is to prove that God exists. Usually it is the atheist who offers this challenge, and when the Christian does not respond with some proof, the atheist feels like he has been vindicated in his atheism.

The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence

Well, do you think it is possible to prove God's existence? I do, and I will attempt to do so by using TAG, or the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence. TAG concludes that the only way to account for logic and logical absolutes is by postulating God's existence.

But remember, the argument I am going to present does not begin with God's existence. It begins with the fact of logic and then draws conclusions from that. So let's ask a question. How does an atheist account for the existence of logical absolutes, such as the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle?

Let me explain what these are. The law of identity says that something is what it is and is not what it is not. The law of non-contradiction says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.

The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false. Logical discourses are based upon these logical absolutes. So again, how does an atheist account for the existence of logical absolutes from his atheistic perspective?

If the atheist says he doesn't need to give an account for them, then why not? Just saying he doesn't need to doesn't help his position at all. He would be doing nothing more than ducking the question.

Furthermore, if he doesn't need to give an account for logical absolutes, then he shouldn't complain if I were to say that I don't need to give an account for God's existence. If the atheist says that logical absolutes just are, then he is still failing to give an account for the logic and logical absolutes from his atheistic worldview.

Besides, atheists object to Christians saying the same thing when they say that God just exists. So why should we accept a non-answer from an atheist who says that logic just is? If the atheist says that asking him to account for logical absolutes is a dumb question, then please logically explain why it is a dumb question.

But remember, to do this, an atheist would have to use logic and he still wouldn't be accounting for the existence of logical absolutes from his perspective. Now faced with these difficulties, some atheists have offered explanations to account for the existence of logic.

Let's take a look at some of them. The most common answer I've heard is that logic is a product of human minds, but this can't work because human minds are different. What one person considers to be true, another may not.

What one person considers to be logically necessary, another might reject. Since human minds are different, often self-contradictory, and they often contradict each other, logic cannot be based upon human minds.

Another answer that atheists have given me is to say that logic is something human minds merely recognize, but this does not account for logic. It only says that it is recognized, that it already exists.

So this explanation just doesn't work. Now others have said that logical absolutes are conventions. In other words, they are principles that we humans agree are valid, but agreeing that they are valid does not account for them.

This would also mean that the logical absolutes are then subject to votes and popular agreement. But this would mean that something is true because a lot of people believe it's true, and this of course doesn't work.

So that argument doesn't work at all. Some have said that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain. But that would mean that different chemical reactions result in different logical absolutes and different logical truths, and that can't work because someone with a chemical imbalance in his brain would have a different set of logical absolutes than someone else would.

If that were the case, then there wouldn't be any absolutes there, would there? So that can't work. Another explanation is to say that logical absolutes are a function of language, that language structures naturally produce logical structures.

But this is a problem because languages are different as they have different syntactical structures. Would logical constructs in Spanish be different than logical constructs in English? Would logic in French be better than logic in Russian?

This makes no sense since it would mean that logical absolutes varied according to language. So that doesn't work. The last attempt at explanation I've heard that has any merit is to say that logic and logical absolutes are properties of the universe, like the natural physical laws of motion and gravity.

But the problem here is that this equates logic with things like weight, mass, heat and cold, all of which can be measured and their effects observed. But how do you measure and observe the effects of the law of non-contradiction or the law of excluded middle?

You can't. You cannot weigh the law of identity or measure the thickness of the law of non-contradiction. You don't find these laws under rocks, in space or under a microscope. Since they cannot be measured in the ways the properties of the universe can be measured, then they are not the same thing as the properties of the universe.

They are not the properties of the universe. There is something different. So this explanation just doesn't work. Maybe there are other explanations from atheists, but I have not heard them. If any atheist wants to try and offer another explanation that can give an account for the existence of logical absolutes from his perspective of atheism, then please let me know and I'll modify this video.

Why Logic Is Conceptual, Absolute, and Transcendent

Okay, so now that we've answered the explanations offered by atheists, let's take this a step further and analyze logic a bit more and see what best accounts for its existence, atheism or theism. First of all, the laws of logic are concepts.

You think them. Logic is a process of the mind, not a process found in running water or sunlight. You can write the laws of logic down on paper. You can talk about them and listen to them being discussed in a debate.

But you cannot observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. This is because they are conceptual by nature. Second, the laws of logic are absolute. This means they don't stop being true if you agree or disagree with them.

They don't change. Otherwise, logic would not be dependable and consistent with itself and with reality, and we would have no way of being rational and judging the validity of arguments. Third, the laws of logic are transcendent.

Logic transcends space and time. This means that if you were to go in any particular direction and reach the end of the physical universe, logical absolutes don't stop being true because of where you are.

If you were to travel back to the beginning of the universe or move a trillion years into the future, they don't stop being true because of when you are. At least, no one has yet demonstrated that they stop being true.

Besides, if they did stop being true and dependable, then they would not be absolute. To summarize, logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute and transcendent. Now, I need to ask a question. Isn't it logical to conclude that a person's thoughts reflect his mind, that he thinks in a manner consistent with what he is?

Well, of course. This makes sense. So, we can say that thoughts reflect the mind. Now, concepts reside in the mind and thoughts reflect the mind. Since we have absolute and transcendent logical truths, which are conceptual by nature, it is logical to conclude that there is an absolute and transcendent mind that, for a better lack of term, has authored the logical absolutes.

The Transcendent Mind Behind Logical Absolutes

I call this absolute and transcendent mind God. So, there you have it, the tag argument. It says that the best explanation for logical transcendent conceptual absolutes is to propose a logical transcendent and absolute mind.

You see, the atheist's perspective can't account for logical absolutes, but the theistic one can. Now, if you don't like this argument, that's fine. But, do you have anything better to offer? If not, then this argument remains valid and shows that the atheistic worldview cannot account for logical absolutes, but the theistic one can.

Therefore, we have demonstrated that God exists. Thank you.