The Transcendental Argument for God Explained: What Must Be True for Anything to Make Sense?

Note: This article was written by a guest author, Mark Hudson, from Campfire Apologetics. We are thankful to Mark for his work, and we hope you find this article helpful!

It’s no secret that there are many ways to practice Christian apologetics. You have evidentialism, classical apologetics, cumulative case apologetics, reformed epistemology, and the method I personally subscribe to and enjoy—presuppositional apologetics. Although many people, including myself, don’t like the term “presuppositional apologetics” because it seems a bit too daunting and intimidating to label it as such. I will from this point forward refer to it simply as “reformed apologetics.”

Reformed apologetics is grounded in transcendental argumentation. I know…. another big, intimidating word has been introduced, but don’t run away just yet. I’ll define what I’m talking about, and I promise, it’ll make more sense.

A transcendental argument simply asks, “What must be true in order for X to be possible at all?” For instance, what must be true in order for me to write this blog? I must have a working computer or device, such as a smartphone or tablet; I must have sufficient battery life on said device; I must be well-studied and aware of the topic about which I’m writing; I must have the time to sit down and clearly articulate my thoughts, etc. Reformed apologetics and transcendental argumentation do not start with evidence and work our way to God, but rather argue from what Cornelius Van Til called “the impossibility of the contrary.” It looks at things like the possibility of logic, reason, morality, science, induction, and the uniformity of nature, and addresses what must be true first, in order for all of these things we take for granted to even be possible. What are the necessary preconditions required to make sense of anything at all?

Maybe an example will help paint the picture. Suppose an atheist objects to the Christian faith because God seems morally evil in the Old Testament, and they just can’t get behind that kind of God. Instead of trying to persuade them that God is not evil and show them that they have a great misunderstanding of scripture, and have failed to properly internally critique the Christian worldview, we might take a step back and say, “Hold on a minute. From your worldview as an atheist, by what standard are you calling anything evil at all?” You see, the unbeliever has to borrow capital from God in order to make their case against him. I don’t want to steal too much from Cornelius Van Til’s playbook, but he argued that unbelievers making this kind of argument are like a small child whose ability to slap their father in the face is only possible because their father is holding them in their lap. This kind of question gets to the foundations of their worldview.

Here is another example that I came across recently. A friend was explaining that one of their unbelieving teachers was raising all kinds of objections. One objection was that there is a contradiction in Genesis 1 and 2. Skeptics argue that there are 2 creation accounts. If we do a careful and slow reading and study of the text, you’ll find that this isn’t the case, but what is the skeptic assuming when they say that there is a contradiction in the text? They are assuming the law of non-contradiction, which is one of the laws of logic. What makes logic possible from the unbelieving worldview? What gives them a foundation for immaterial laws that are unchanging and universal? What makes a contradiction meaningful if there is no God who maintains these laws? Of course, we should address the text as well, but asking about their fundamental assumptions is a good way to start, and also exposes the shaky ground their house is built upon.

I’ve talked about transcendental argumentation, but what exactly are transcendentals? Transcendentals are immaterial aspects of reality. They are not things that take up space in time. They are concepts like goodness, beauty, truth, unity, and being. Often, apologists use logic, morality, and scientific or mathematical laws to argue that the non-believer lacks a foundation to appeal to such things. These are all immaterial realities, but are not themselves transcendentals. Before your head spins, allow me to elaborate a bit. These things are grounded in transcendentals and are expressions thereof, which again are things such as truth, morality, goodness, etc.

For instance, logic expresses and reflects being, truth, and unity. The laws of logic reflect these transcendentals. The law of identity reflects being and unity. Something exists to be reasoned about, and it remains the same over time. The law of non-contradiction reflects truth. The same proposition cannot be both true and false in the same respect and at the same time. It cannot be true that my white Toyota RAV4 is parked in my driveway and also that it is not parked in my driveway as I type this. The law of excluded middle also reflects truth. A proposition is either true or its negation is true.

For example, when you flip a coin, and it lands on heads, it is either true that it landed on heads or that it did not land on heads. There is no middle or third option. There are only 2 faces on a coin. Maybe that is as clear as mud, but one thing I will say is that the more time you spend on these topics, the more they start to click and make sense. A little bit of exposure therapy never hurt anyone. For more information on or to have a better understanding of reformed apologetics, I would recommend checking out “Revealed Apologetics”, “The Think Institute,” and, of course, I have to shamelessly plug myself, “Campfire Apologetics”, all on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CampfireApologetics.