I have been looking into the Transcendental Argument for God's existence for a while and will give some of the main points that it makes and a few links to see what everyone thinks. But remember it does have some hints of the ontological argument but it is supposed to. It is part of the presuppostional apologetic, which assumes the Christian Worldview. So if the Christian view fo perfection is true then the argument is true.

Logic

Logic is grounded in God's being for it is part of his nature. God cannot become illogical or make 2+2=5 it is against his very nature so God is necessary for Logic. If the non believer wants to debate this they must give an account of where knowledge comes from.

Science
You must presume a traditonal view of God's Providence and foreknowledge for this. The fact that the unbeliever has no grounds for believing in the inductive principle. We ultimately don't know if the sun will rise tommorow or if things happen from day today the unbeliever must assume this. The theist on the other hand believes in a sovereign all powerful God who is in control of all things (Ephesians 1). So the theist can assume that God is good and that he governs the universe in rational fashion (looking back on logic and looking forward to morality). For instance some "miracles" are brought about by God using the natural order (Ie. moses at the Sea of Reeds).

Morality

This is much the same as logic. Goodness, holiness, justice etc. are grounded in God's nature he cannot act against this nature therefore since we are created in his image we have these moral compasses also.

just a run down of a huge argument. I in no way claim to have represented it fairly. This is what I know from what I have read. If you want links I can post some if anyone wants to read further.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

Blake, this is excellent!

I was just looking into researching this. It is a very interesting argument, and from my cursory knowledge, looks pretty powerful.

Do post the links if you have any.

Originally posted by Gavin
Blake, this is excellent!

I was just looking into researching this. It is a very interesting argument, and from my cursory knowledge, looks pretty powerful.

Do post the links if you have any.

The fact that it is EXTREMELY hard to grasp is a issue with this argument. Greg Bahnsen after he ripped Gordon Stein to shreds in their debate got into a e-mail discussion with Stein and it took Stein 6 months to even begin to grasp the signifigance of the argument. Some good links are at www.reformed.org.
Michael Martin and John Frame got into a debate over this and Martin just didn't get it (not to mention Martins sad grasp of Christian theology!). I will send some more links tommorow.

In Christ sovereign grace,
Blake

You're right, it does look a whole lot like an ontological argument in that the being of God is assumed and that it is also assumed that God's nature is the metaphysic of logic, morality etc...

Pilgrim:
You're were right, it does look a whole lot like an ontological argument in that the being of God is assumed and that it is also assumed that God's nature is the metaphysic of logic, morality etc...

That is the point that virtually all skeptics just don't get. They dismiss the argument on these grounds. The thing that they miss is the real argument! The Christian can assume the Christian worldview because it is in fact the only thing that can account for Logic, Science, and Morality.
The Skeptics who try to argue against this don't get the "transcendental" part of the argument or they attack some abstract conception of God. Basically if this argument is right then Christianity is inescapibly true.
Soli Deo Gloria,

Blake Reas;)

Blake Reas:
I have been looking into the Transcendental Argument for God's existence for a while and will give some of the main points that it makes and a few links to see what everyone thinks. But remember it does have some hints of the ontological argument but it is supposed to. It is part of the presuppostional apologetic, which assumes the Christian Worldview. So if the Christian view fo perfection is true then the argument is true.

Logic

Logic is grounded in God's being for it is part of his nature. God cannot become illogical or make 2+2=5 it is against his very nature so God is necessary for Logic. If the non believer wants to debate this they must give an account of where knowledge comes from.

Science
You must presume a traditonal view of God's Providence and foreknowledge for this. The fact that the unbeliever has no grounds for believing in the inductive principle. We ultimately don't know if the sun will rise tommorow or if things happen from day today the unbeliever must assume this. The theist on the other hand believes in a sovereign all powerful God who is in control of all things (Ephesians 1). So the theist can assume that God is good and that he governs the universe in rational fashion (looking back on logic and looking forward to morality). For instance some "miracles" are brought about by God using the natural order (Ie. moses at the Sea of Reeds).

Morality

This is much the same as logic. Goodness, holiness, justice etc. are grounded in God's nature he cannot act against this nature therefore since we are created in his image we have these moral compasses also.

just a run down of a huge argument. I in no way claim to have represented it fairly. This is what I know from what I have read. If you want links I can post some if anyone wants to read further.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

Not to be a nay-sayer but...

ALL of these things can be "proven" true by observation... thus the scientific method can easily replace God here...

Calvinist:
Not to be a nay-sayer but...

ALL of these things can be "proven" true by observation... thus the scientific method can easily replace God here...

Not to say that you don't understand the argument but........You must HAVE presuppostions to do science.
1) The Principle of Induction: Philosophical Assumption (hence Presuppostion)
2) The Logic to create the scientific Method: Do you have some logic we can examine by chance? I always wanted to examine some concrete logic that I could hold :p ! Your assertion is ridicoulous. It is typical of a Scientific Postivist like yourself. Your statement undercut your whole post.
3) Morality cannot be accounted for by Science: It is abstract like numbers or Logic. You could say that Evolution could make morals but that again misses the point. Why be moral? There is no transcendent good to be compared to so why treat your fellow man well?

Like I said your assumption that Science can prove anything is based on philosophical assumptions that CANNOT be tested Scientifically. You need to give arguments for your assertions.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

Blake Reas:
Not to say that you don't understand the argument but........You must HAVE presuppostions to do science.
1) The Principle of Induction: Philosophical Assumption (hence Presuppostion)

When you drop your Bible will it hit the floor or suspend in mid-air?

2) The Logic to create the scientific Method: Do you have some logic we can examine by chance? I always wanted to examine some concrete logic that I could hold :p ! Your assertion is ridicoulous. It is typical of a Scientific Postivist like yourself. Your statement undercut your whole post.

The philosophical "proof" of logic has been accepted as reality based on our ability to think. In our case, to have being means to be able to use logic, even in the simplest of minds. Everyone "knows" that there is some observable called "logic." Now it's source might be unknown and I would argue that it is "being" and further argue ontologically that there is an original source of logic which in non-contingent.

How about, I am therefore I have the ability to think. Or do you believe that it is a philosophical assumption that you exist?

cogito ergo sum
~ReneDescarte.

3) Morality cannot be accounted for by Science: It is abstract like numbers or Logic. You could say that Evolution could make morals but that again misses the point. Why be moral? There is no transcendent good to be compared to so why treat your fellow man well?

I'll agree with this one. There are morals so there must be a source of morality.

Like I said your assumption that Science can prove anything is based on philosophical assumptions that CANNOT be tested Scientifically. You need to give arguments for your assertions.

I don't need to give any arguements cause I wasn't looking for a fight. Just making an "observation."

In Christ,
Blake Reas

Sweet.

I wanted to add that Logic exists ontologically and a piori philosophically. You have no case at all in grouping thought within the realm of those things which cannot be observed, because thought is the one true reality which we know for sure defines our being. Without it, you simply don't exist.

Calvinist:
When you drop your Bible will it hit the floor or suspend in mid-air?

Yes that is my point. Ok you have a tube of tooth paste and we know that when you squeeze that tube of tooth paste that it will come out in the same way everytime. You must rely on the inductive principle of Logic to say this. The Atheist or non believer has not reason to believe that things happen know as they did in the past. How do we know things won't change tommorow?

The philosophical "proof" of logic has been accepted as reality based on our ability to think. In our case, to have being means to be able to use logic, even in the simplest of minds. Everyone "knows" that there is some observable called "logic." Now it's source might be unknown and I would argue that it is "being" and further argue ontologically that there is an original source of logic which in non-contingent.

Can we trust out minds to think? Yes, all transcendentalist agree that even the unbeliever uses logic but he has no grounds in believing that it exist. Just look at the way some people say that logic is nothing but a language construct and it doesn' really exist. The unbelieving world view CANNOT give an account for why logic exist. The point is that it is impossible for there not to be a God he is a "must" in all possible worlds.

How about, I am therefore I have the ability to think. Or do you believe that it is a philosophical assumption that you exist?

You have the ability to think because God gave you the ability. Otherwise if you where an unbeliever (I know you are a believer! ) you would run into nasty problems such as Darwins doubt. You must have a rational God to account for the thought that you proclaim to have. That is the point of the nihilist that since God is "dead" nothing has meaning any more. Besides this has come into attack from Bertrand Russel ( I think, haven't read much on it lately)

cogito ergo sum
~ReneDescarte.



I'll agree with this one. There are morals so there must be a source of morality.

This has the same point as does the one with Logic. It cannot be just be wholly other from God. Logic is grounded in his nature just like morality.

I don't need to give any arguements cause I wasn't looking for a fight. Just making an "observation."

Sorry! But I would like to keep the conversation going. A good book to get would be Greg Bahnsen's "Always Ready" it is a introuductory level on the Presupp method. Well, talk to you next time.

In his sovereign Grace,
Blake Reas

Sweet.