TheTranscendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is anargument that attempts to prove theexistence of God by appealing to thenecessary conditions for thepossibility ofexperience andknowledge.[1]
A version was formulated byImmanuel Kant in his 1763 workThe Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.C. S. Lewis'sargument from reason is also a kind of transcendental argument.
Most contemporary formulations of a transcendental argument for God have been developed within theframework ofChristianpresuppositional apologetics and the likes ofCornelius Van Til andGreg Bahnsen.[2]
"Transcendental" in this case is used as an adjective specifying a specific kind of argument, and not a noun. Transcendental arguments should not be confused with arguments for the existence of somethingtranscendent. Rather, transcendental arguments are arguments that make inferences from the ability to think and experience.[citation needed]
So-calledprogressive transcendental arguments begin with an apparently indubitable and universally accepted statement about people's experiences of the world. They use this to make substantive knowledge-claims about the world, e.g., that itis causally and spatiotemporally related. They start with what is left at theend of the skeptic's process of doubting.
Progressive transcendental arguments take the form ofmodus ponens withmodal operators:
Regressive transcendental arguments, on the other hand,begin at the same point as the skeptic, e.g., the fact that we have experience of a causal and spatiotemporal world, and show that certain notions are implicit in our conceptions of such experience. Regressive transcendental arguments are more conservative in that they do not purport to make substantive ontological claims about the world.
Regressive transcendental arguments take the form ofmodus tollens with modal operators:
They are also sometimes said to be distinct from standarddeductive andinductive forms ofreasoning, although this has been disputed, for instance by Anthony Genova[3] and Graham Bird.[4]
There are many versions of the transcendental argument for the existence of God (both progressive and regressive), but they generally proceed as follows:[5]
Thetranscendental unity of apperception refers to the combination of different impressions, experiences andcategories into a single, intelligibleconsciousness held by aperson. It is argued thatthe negation of the existence of God therefore entails theimpossibility of knowledge, which isself-refuting.
The TAG differs fromthomistic andevidentialist arguments, which presuppose the validity of human perception and judgement when proving the existence of God.
MedievalAsh'ari Islamic theologians formulated a type of transcendental argument based on the notion that morality, logic, etc. cannot be fully understood apart from revelation and thereby, belief in theQuran and the Islamic truth claims were necessary in order to interpret the external world. Foral-Ashari and others, it does not make sense to argue against religion using a priori assumptions about morality or scientific probabilities when these can only be understood in light of divine revelation.[6]
Bálint Békefi has argued that TAG, as an ambitious transcendental argument, is susceptible to theStroudian objection that how things must appear is not necessarily how things actually are. He also argues that the two strategies available to apologists for responding to Stroud are unsuccessful, and thus it is unlikely that TAG can overcome the Stroudian objection.[7]
Internet Infidels co-founder Jeffery Jay Lowder has argued that the presuppositional apologetics' version of TAG is fatally flawed for numerous reasons.[8] First, Bahnsen fails to defend thenecessity of Christianity instead of the meresufficiency for the rational justification of thelaws of logic, thelaws of science, and thelaws of morality. In other words, such reasoningaffirms the consequent.Second, Bahnsen conflates "atheism" with "materialism" and has really presented an argument against materialism, not an argument for Christianity. Third, Bahnsen believed that the laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality areabstract objects, but Christianity arguably underdetermines the relationship between God and abstract objects. Some Christian philosophers, such asPeter van Inwagen, affirmPlatonism and the compatibility of God and abstract objects. But other Christian philosophers argue that Platonism is incompatible withdivine aseity.William Lane Craig urges Christian philosophers to consider anti-realist theories of abstract objects.[9]
But what about The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG)--the argument that logic, science, and objective ethical standards presuppose the existence of God?