Transcendental Argument

Everyone has a network of beliefs. This network of beliefs are what they believe about reality.

Everyone has assumptions or presuppositions on which their network of beliefs rest.

People do not prove their presuppositions by evidence, instead they decide what is evidence and interpret all evidence "by" their presuppositions.

So how then can two people with conflicting Presuppositions ever argue with one another?

Each time one person brings forth an "evidence" the other will merely wipe it away by his own presuppositions.

This is where indirect arugments come in.

A Transcendental Argument is an indirect argument.

It says that without the Christian network of beliefs you can not consistently explain anything.

The Transcendental Argument rest on the impossibility of the contrary.

It says that the explanation of all things rest upon the Triune God of Scripture.

If you deny Him then you cannot make sense out of the world He created.

The reason why Atheist do make sense out of the world is because they hold two very different network of beliefs.

The one they profess the other they live by [even though they surpress it].

They profess Atheism, but they live by the presuppositions that the Triune God of Scriptures exist.

They know the God who made them and they try with all their might to shut Him out of their world.

The only way they can deny God is to first presuppose Him.

Atheism presupposes Theism [Christian Theism]