This is a repost from Revealed Apologetics by Bro. Eli Ayala.
1. A transcendental argument is able to operate on absolutely any fact of experience. The presuppositional apologist thus has an unlimited number of facts to choose from to utilize his argument.
2. A transcendental argument argues for its conclusion indirectly rather than directly. That is, rather than ripping up the carpet to “directly” prove that there are floorboards underneath the floor, a transcendental argument shows “indirectly” what must be the case for the floor to be there in the first place. Or rather than “directly” showing the psych patient air molecules in a neon light, you instead argue “indirectly” for their existence by showing if they (or air) didn’t exist, neither would we.
3. A transcendental argument has objective force. This is a crucial distinction to the other arguments listed at the beginning. This “indirect” way of proving something is so powerful that it is absolutely impossible for it fail to prove what it’s intending to.
Van Til’s transcendental program is not in the business of proving a probability; it is rather a dogmatic, full-proof argument which proves absolutely the existence of God.
Read more here: An Absolute Proof for God by Joshua Pillows
2 thoughts on “An Absolute Proof for God”
Will schedule this for our next Presup round up
LikeLiked by 1 person