Transcendental Proof by Jack Kettler
The four following quotes utilize transcendental or presuppositional arguments for God's Existence. The argument will be restated after each quote, utilizing logical form or structure.
“Only the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. That is, only the Christian view of God, creation, providence, revelation, and human nature can make sense of the world in which we live. So, for example, only the Christian worldview can make sense out of morality since it alone provides the necessary presuppositions for making ethical evaluations, namely, an absolute and personal Law Giver who reveals His moral will to mankind. It does not make sense, however, for the atheist/materialist to denounce any action as wrong since, according to his worldview, all that exists is matter in motion. And matter in motion is inherently non-moral. That is, since the world according to the materialist is totally explicable in terms of physical processes, and since physical processes are categorically non-moral, moral considerations have no place in his worldview. Thus, for the materialist to say that stealing is morally wrong makes as much sense as saying that the secretion of insulin from the pancreas is morally wrong. [This is not to say, however, that atheists never act morally. Atheists feed their children, give money to charity and often make good neighbors. But atheists cannot give a justification for their actions. In the words of Cornelius Van Til, they are living on “borrowed capital” from the Christian worldview. Thus, they profess one thing, but their actions belie this profession].” - Michael Butler, Mr. Butler is Dr. Greg Bahnsen's protégé and teaches philosophy and apologetics at Christ Theological Seminary.
Premise 1: Only the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience, as it alone makes sense of the world in which we live.
Premise 2: The Christian worldview includes the belief in an absolute and personal Law Giver who reveals His moral will to mankind, providing the necessary presuppositions for making ethical evaluations.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Christian worldview is necessary for making sense of morality, as only it can provide the foundation for moral evaluations.
Premise 3: Atheists/materialists reject the existence of a personal Law Giver and believe that all that exists is matter in motion.
Premise 4: Matter in motion is inherently non-moral, and according to the materialist worldview, the world is solely explicable through physical processes, which are categorically non-moral.
Conclusion: Hence, according to the materialist worldview, moral considerations have no place, and it does not make sense for an atheist/materialist to denounce any action as morally wrong.
Premise 5: Atheists may still act morally in their lives, but they cannot provide a justification for their actions, as their worldview does not support the existence of moral principles.
Conclusion: Therefore, atheists live on “borrowed capital,” and their worldview is bankrupt.*
“If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point. Then he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality. He will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such an exhaustive understanding of reality, he has no true knowledge of anything at all. Either man must then know everything or he knows nothing. This is the dilemma that confronts every form of non-Christian epistemology.” - Cornelius Van Til, “Cornelius Van Til was a Dutch-American reformed philosopher and theologian, who is credited as being the originator of modern presuppositional apologetics. A graduate of Calvin College, Van Til later received his PhD from Princeton University.” - Wikipedia
Premise 1: If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point.
Premise 2: If a man seeks knowledge within himself as the final reference point, he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality and hold that without such understanding, he has no true knowledge of anything at all.
Conclusion: Therefore, if one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon God's original self-knowledge and consequent revelation to man, they will be stuck in a dilemma where they must either know everything or know nothing. This dilemma applies to every form of non-Christian epistemology.
“The atheist who asserts that there is no God asserts by the same words that he holds the whole universe in his mind; he asserts that no fact, past, present, future, near, or far, escapes his attention, that no power, however great, can baffle or deceive him. In rejecting God, he claims omniscience and omnipotence. In other words, an atheist is one who claims that he himself is God” - Gordon H. Clark, “Gordon Haddon Clark was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian. He was a leading figure associated with presuppositional apologetics and was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years.” - Wikipedia
Premise 1: The atheist who asserts that there is no God implies that he holds the entire universe in his mind and that no fact or power can escape his attention or deceive him.
Premise 2: By rejecting God, the atheist claims omniscience and omnipotence, as he assumes that he has the knowledge and power to assert the non-existence of a higher being.
Conclusion: Therefore, an atheist is essentially claiming that he is God, as he assumes the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence in rejecting the existence of a divine being.
“The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality.” - Greg Bahnsen, “Greg L. Bahnsen was an American Reformed philosopher, apologist, and debater. He was a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full-time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies.” - Wikipedia
Premise 1: The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything.
Premise 2: The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality.
Conclusion: Therefore, God's existence is necessary for the intelligibility of proof, and the atheist worldview lacks the necessary foundations for logic, morality, science, and intelligible experience.
Historical Non-Presuppositional Arguments for God’s Existence:
A Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence:
Premise 1: The universe and everything within it has a cause or explanation for its existence.
Premise 2: The existence and order of the universe cannot be adequately explained solely by naturalistic or scientific explanations.
Premise 3: The best explanation for the existence and order of the universe is the existence of a transcendent being, namely God.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists as the best explanation for the existence and order of the universe.
An Ontological Argument for God’s Existence:
Premise 1: God, by definition, is a being that possesses all perfections.
Premise 2: Existence is a perfection.
Premise 3: It is more perfect for a being to exist in reality than merely in the mind.
Premise 4: If God only exists in the mind, then a greater being, one that exists in reality, can be conceived.
Premise 5: But this contradicts God's definition as a being that possesses all perfections.
Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist in reality, as the concept of a being that possesses all perfections implies existence in reality.
An Aristotelian first-cause Argument for God’s Existence:
Premise 1: Every event has a cause.
Premise 2: The chain of causes cannot proceed infinitely into the past.
Premise 3: If there were no first cause, then there would be no subsequent causes.
Premise 4: Therefore, there must be a first cause that initiated the chain of causes.
Premise 5: This first cause must be timeless, immaterial, and powerful enough to bring about the existence of the universe.
Conclusion: The existence of a first cause implies the existence of a necessary and powerful being that we refer to as God
A Moral Argument for God’s Existence:
Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties exist in the world.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties cannot be grounded solely in subjective human preferences or societal consensus.
Premise 3: The best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties is the existence of a transcendent moral lawgiver.
Conclusion: Therefore, the existence of objective moral values and duties implies the existence of a necessary and moral being that we refer to as God.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
* Assistance from AI Chat and Grammarly