Often times, when TAG is presented, people reply "Where is the
argument?" or "What is the syllogism?". First we need to explain
the form of a transcendental argument, and then we need to
present it. This flowchart will make much more sense if you
understand the contents of this box correctly, so please pay
attention to the following excerpt from Fr. Dcn. Dr. Ananias'
paper, "
".
1. ◊Y
2. □(◊Y) [from (1) and axiom 5]
3. □(◊Y⸧ X) [transcendental premise]
4. So, □(◊Y) ⸧ □X [from (3) and axiom K]
5. Therefore, □X [from (2) and (4)]
As James Anderson points out in constructing a transcendental
argument according to S5 modal logic (as seen above), when the transcendental premise (3) is expressed as
a claim about a necessary condition for the possibility of human thought, then the transcendental
argument delivers its conclusion that X is not only transcendentally necessary, but that it is “necessary in
the broad logical sense as well.” This provides one
with the strongest type of transcendental argument.
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
(TAG), not to be confused with a God-of-the-gaps
argument (a fallacy), simply removes all objections and
excuses for not believing in God. TAG is a
presuppositional argument and critiques the
presuppositions of other world views. Again, since
everyone
presupposes something (e.g., a precommitment in using
logic, reason, evidence, making arguments, etc.), there
is no one who is presuppositionally neutral when it comes
to factual questions and experience (as Natural
Theology/classical foundationalism would have it). As
stated earlier, the use of reason, logic, evidence,
arguments is not something proven by experience. It is
that by which one proceeds to prove everything else.
However, one nevertheless has to ground and justify that
reason, logic, and arguments work and are valid
operations for what they think these operations can obtain
and establish (this is a meta-logical analysis). The
problem is that man, locked within his own sphere of
reason, cannot appeal to what is in question (i.e.,
reason,
logic, and arguments) to establish that reason, logic, and
arguments are valid and work. This would be to
engage in the fallacy of circular reasoning ("question
begging") and epistemic bootstrapping. A
Transcendental
Argument, therefore, attempts to discover the
preconditions for the possibility of reason, logic, and
argumentation. It does this by taking some aspect of human
rationality and investigates what must be true (i.e.,the necessary condition) in order for valid rational
processes to be possible. Again, as we have seen,
transcendental arguments typically have the following form:
For x to be the case, y must also be the case, since
y is the precondition (or the necessary condition) of x. And
given x is the case, y is the case.
What the TAG demonstrates is that there is only one unique
condition that will satisfy the conditions for the
possibility of knowledge, rationality, logic, and arguments.
The necessary precondition (what must be
presupposed) in order to have knowledge, logic, and
arguments is the Orthodox Christian notion of God as He
has revealed Himself to us (revelation therefore is required
since we are unable to get out of the epistemic
quagmire of circularity). In other words, the TAG argues
from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary of
Orthodox Christianity (any view that denies the Orthodox
Christian view of God) is shown to be impossible.
And if the negation of Orthodox Christianity is false, then
Orthodox Christianity is proved true. That is to say,
the structure of the argument is a disjunctive syllogism.
Either A or not-A; not-not-A; therefore A.
Consequently, if TAG establishes that Orthodox Christianity
is the necessary conceptual precondition for
rationality, logic, and argumentation, then it follows that
we must hold (presuppose) the Orthodox Christian
worldview as it has been revealed to us in order to be
rational. Furthermore, if someone refuses to accept the
Orthodox Christian worldview or God’s existence, then they
have no foundation for rationality and, without
such a foundation, they have no rational basis for mounting
an objection against TAG or the conclusion of
TAG, that the Orthodox notion of God (which is not a generic
theistic notion of God, but a personal God unique
only to Orthodoxy, the only condition that satisfies the
demands set out) does not exist. Therefore, the God of
Orthodoxy exists."