The Flaws in the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence
Written on
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Transcendental Argument
The Transcendental Argument for God's existence (TAG) has gained traction in recent discussions, especially on social media platforms. Interestingly, during my time in seminary, I encountered numerous arguments for God's existence, such as cosmological, moral, and ontological arguments, but TAG was notably absent.
For instance, I noticed that Frank Turek recently tweeted about the topic, potentially referencing TAG without explicitly naming it. In essence, TAG posits that logic, morality, and science fundamentally rely on a theistic worldview, asserting that the existence of God is crucial for validating these concepts. Without God, proponents argue, universal laws cannot be justified (Got Questions).
Yet, I see several glaring issues with TAG that seem overlooked by its advocates. Perhaps I should refrain from being overly critical, as I was once equally unaware of the flaws in various philosophical arguments during my Christian phase.
Section 1.1: The Assumption of Universal Laws
Proponents of TAG often assert that laws of logic, mathematics, and physics inherently require God's existence. However, I have yet to encounter a robust defense of this claim from Christian apologists. Most seem to take this assertion for granted, failing to substantiate it.
One reason for this oversight may stem from a misunderstanding where materialism or naturalism is conflated with the absence of abstract entities. Abstract concepts like laws and ideas are non-physical; thus, some Christians mistakenly conclude that embracing naturalism equates to denying logic and mathematics. This misinterpretation exemplifies a fallacy known as equivocation, where the meanings of key terms shift within the argument.
Christians unaware of this flaw might construct a strawman argument, suggesting that using logic to contest theism inherently assumes theism. They might claim that if one genuinely embraced atheism, they would see logic and reason as baseless. Yet, the rejection of supernaturalism doesn't imply a denial of the structured nature of reality, governed by laws of physics, mathematics, and logic.
Almost all atheists recognize the reliability of logic and mathematics as tools for understanding the world, independent of the existence of God. If Christians wish to assert that a God-less world negates the existence of numbers, logic, natural laws, and morality, they must provide concrete evidence rather than mere assertions.
In truth, this claim appears nearly impossible to validate or invalidate. I cannot conceive of any argument or evidence that could convincingly support it.
Section 1.2: Subjective Confidence vs. Objective Reality
Another fundamental flaw in TAG lies in its tendency to confuse the objective nature of reality with an individual's subjective confidence in their ability to comprehend that reality. Certain interpretations of TAG suggest that if humans evolved, their main objective would be survival, rather than the pursuit of objective knowledge. This view implies that we lack justification for trusting our reasoning as a means to understand the world objectively. Yet, the ability to acquire knowledge suggests that we are not merely products of evolution but, rather, creations of a divine entity.
The flaw here is that confidence in acquiring knowledge is inherently subjective. Just because we feel confident does not mean universal laws exist to be understood. To clarify, consider these four scenarios:
- The universe is orderly, and we are confident in our knowledge.
- The universe is orderly, but we lack confidence in our knowledge.
- The universe is chaotic with no universal laws, yet we feel confident in our knowledge.
- The universe is chaotic with no universal laws, and we lack confidence in our knowledge.
Given the widespread belief in the attainability of knowledge, we can only dismiss scenarios 2 and 4. However, scenario 3 remains a possibility, suggesting that our confidence may be misplaced in a world devoid of objective laws or principles.
For TAG to hold validity, Christians must argue that subjective confidence can only exist if God is real. Yet, it is evident that our confidence in knowledge does not necessarily stem from God; it could arise from evolutionary processes. Thus far, I have not encountered any Christian apologist who has convincingly shown that subjective confidence cannot be a product of random mutations and natural selection.
Even if Christians are correct in asserting that universal laws depend on God's existence, they have not definitively proven God's existence due to their failure to establish the objective reality of these universal laws. It remains possible that we inhabit a world where such laws do not exist independently, but rather are constructed through our cognitive faculties.
Chapter 2: The Circular Reasoning of TAG
Let me pose a question to Christians who support TAG: How can you be certain that we can attain knowledge? The typical answer is: "Because this universe was created by God." The follow-up question is: "How do you know that God exists?" The response often circles back: "Because knowledge can only be attained if God exists."
This reasoning is circular.
Jay Dyer, a Christian YouTuber, acknowledges that TAG involves circular reasoning, but he argues that such circularity is acceptable in discussions of foundational concepts. He claims that since laws of logic and mathematics reference themselves, circular reasoning is justifiable.
This perspective is fundamentally flawed. Circular reasoning is inherently invalid, regardless of the context. The principles we discuss are unproven and unprovable. We can only accept them as valid without additional proof.
For example, in mathematics, axioms are generally assumed true without proof. If they cannot be proven, how can we claim they are true? The answer lies in their self-evidence.
Consider this: if you place one apple on a table and add another, you reliably end up with two apples. If, however, you place one apple and add another, only to find three apples, you might begin to question the validity of the equation 1 + 1 = 2. Yet, such an anomaly does not occur in practice.
Similarly, the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be non-A simultaneously) is self-evident, and we justifiably assume it to be true without needing to prove it.
In this respect, both Christians and atheists operate from the same foundational understanding. They accept the Law of Non-Contradiction, not because they believe that God establishes such a principle, but because it is inherently evident and undeniably true.
Thus, it is disingenuous for Christians to claim that understanding the world necessitates theism.
Chapter 3: Trusting Cognitive Abilities
A thought-provoking question for Christians: Should non-Christians trust their cognitive abilities? Advocates of TAG assert that God's existence underpins the laws of logic, allowing us to comprehend and utilize these laws. They argue this justifies our trust in rationality and knowledge acquisition.
However, when non-Christians assert, "I find the arguments for the Christian God unconvincing," how do Christians respond? Should non-Christians place confidence in their reasoning, or not?
Interestingly, Christians often provide reasons for non-believers to doubt their judgment. A common explanation is that human reasoning is impaired by sin due to the Fall, suggesting that individuals should be cautious in trusting their thoughts.
So, should we trust our capacity to understand the world or not? Many Christians seem conflicted, wanting to affirm "yes" in one context and "no" in another. They wish to have their cake and eat it too.
Chapter 4: The Paradox of Universal Laws
Another irony lies in the fact that Christians who utilize TAG to assert that we can comprehend universal laws are often the same individuals who believe these laws can be overridden or altered. They pray for divine intervention, seek miracles, and assert that God's will can suspend the usual laws of nature. If God exists, then even the most grievous acts, like causing harm to innocents, could be justified by claiming divine authority.
When the same assertion ("God exists") serves to support contradictory positions, it raises significant concerns about the reasoning employed. It indicates that the motivation behind the argument is more about justifying a predetermined conclusion than adhering to sound logic.
Conclusion
Whenever I encounter Christians advocating yet another philosophical argument for God's existence, I am compelled to ask: If the God they believe in truly exists, why is there a need to defend His existence? Imagine a country where citizens feel compelled to prove to outsiders that their President is indeed alive.
If the Christian God genuinely exists and desires a relationship with humanity, one would expect Him to reveal Himself in a profound and convincing manner. It should not fall to His followers to demonstrate His existence to skeptics.