For a long time, I've wanted to summarize the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG), which I learned about from a book, articles, and debates of Greg Bahnsen. This may be useful for others, but mainly it'll help cement it in my mind. Due to staying very busy with work, I hadn't done so, but recently I believe the Lord led me to slow down a bit in order take more time to rest in Him, catch up in areas I'm behind in, and explore new possibilities for the future. I'm so thankful for this! Praise God! Now let's get to it:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
That is what God says in Psalm 19. Everything points to the glorious Creator. What Bahnsen (and others before him, such as Van Til) argues is that you can indeed start from anything and in it see conclusive proof of God.
How so? By analyzing worldviews for internal consistency.
Everyone has a worldview, and every worldview has presuppositions. The correct view of the world (with God as He has revealed Himself in His Word) is coherent and makes sense. Any other worldview will have problems, though, because they aren't correct.
In logic, an indirect conditional proof starts with premises. Then, something is assumed to be false, and it is examined where that denial leads to. If that denial leads to the contradiction of one of the premises, then it is logically proven that whatever was assumed false is actually true. We can use this tool when analyzing worldviews.
Atheists, for example, usually live like logical absolutes exist, there is a standard of right and wrong, science is possible, and so on. We might call these their premises, or parts of their worldview. When we look at their worldview and, for the sake of argument, assume that God doesn't exist, the atheist's premises are contradicted because God is the only true basis for these premises, and thus his or her worldview falls apart.
Let's look at an example with morality:
Within the Christian worldview, we believe in absolute right and wrong. And this makes sense, because there's an absolute Lawgiver.
In a materialistic worldview, however, God is denied and with Him the possibility of right and wrong. Therefore, any materialist who believes in right and wrong (and they all do, because that's how God made them) is inconsistent.
I'd like to write out an argument in logical form with ~ and other logical symbols and use Modus ponens and so on but am not sure I remember enough from formal logic to do so. So, I'll continue:
How about we take purpose in life:
As a Christian, Christ gives our life purpose. And reason to care.
An atheist, though, ultimately should believe nothing matters. If he or she lives like anything matters (or argues that anything matters) then he or she is inconsistent.
I just used a random word generator to come up with the word solo. As a Christian, I can understand why God has made us as individuals and yet we desire relationships. Unity and diversity make sense. But the atheist cannot ultimately explain this. Without God, we just are the way we are. There's nothing special about individuality or love: To them, it's all just a bunch of molecules in motion. If they are consistent, that is.
To wrap up, I'd like to note that it's possible to internally examine worldviews for consistency even if they presuppose the existence of God, but not the Christian God. For example, a Jew who does not believe in the Messiah, Yeshua, would claim to believe the Old Testament is God's word. But he or she would be inconsistent because Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and many other scriptures clearly predict Jesus.
