The transcendental argument for God’s existence

With the previous arguments we have seen that it is possible to demonstrate the existence of God, through inductive reasoning. What does inductive mean? Let’s think of a scientist who wants to measure the acceleration of a body due to the gravity of the Earth. The scientist will pick up an object with a certain mass, and drop it from a certain height. He will calculate the falling time by repeating the experiment several times with the same conditions, or by changing the height, the mass of the object etc…

Reasoning on these measurements, he will look for a mathematical formula for which these results are always verified. Once a certain formula has been found, it will perform other measurements, checking if these results are also verified by the formula. If yes, its formula will describe a theory. If not, it will discard that formula and look for another one.
This is called inductive reasoning: we started from the assumption that a physical law can be expressed by a mathematical formula and that this law is constant so that by repeating our experiment, the measured values are consistent with the formula we have found.

Inductive reasoning is based on three important logical laws:

Law of identity: a thing is equal to itself. For example, ‘a dog’ is identical to ‘a dog’. If we say ‘a dog’ we mean a dog and not a cat.

Law of non-contradiction: a statement must be either true or false, it cannot be both. For example the sentence ‘today is Sunday’ is true if today is Sunday, and false if today is another day of the week, for example, Monday. Today cannot be both Sunday and not Sunday: the sentence cannot be true and false at the same time.

Law of excluded middle: a statement must be true or false, there is no alternative. There are no half-truths, the phrase ‘Today is Sunday’ is either true or false, it’s not that at 11:59 on Sunday it’s half true and half false.

These laws are applied to numbers so that we get mathematics. From mathematics, in our example, the scientist can derive his formula.
Inductive reasoning is built on logic. Logical laws form the foundation of inductive reasoning. Without logical laws, we could not reason. If these laws were not valid, all reasoning would collapse.
The laws of logic are always valid: a thousand years ago these laws were valid. In a thousand years, these laws will still be valid. A thousand years ago the number 5 was the number 5, in a thousand years the number 5 will always be the number 5. As well as the other examples we can give.

These laws don’t change over time, and they don’t change according to where we are, or how fast we are moving.
They were not invented by men. Indeed, when there were no men on Earth, they were valid and they still exist. No one voted for them, they are true whether you like it or not. One plus one equals two, whether you like it or not.
Logic is an immaterial reality, it does not depend on matter, space or time. We can represent the number 4 with the matter, for example by counting four apples, but we cannot erase the number 4, by removing the apples from the table. The number 4 exists only as an abstract concept. Abstract concepts exist only in the mind. We cannot bring concepts into physical reality. We may think of a concept, but it is found nowhere in the universe except in our minds.

We didn’t invent these laws, but we discovered them. They were already there. Our ability to reason is basically the ability to perceive or discover those logical laws. For us, logic makes sense, but we didn’t create it, somehow it already exists and has always existed.

Moreover, how do we know that these laws are really valid? How do we know that they will be valid in the future, or in another location of the universe? How can we trust that in a thousand years, the number 5 will always be number 5, and not be number 3? This idea is irrational and unacceptable. If we don’t trust logic we can’t know anything.
Laws of logic are at the basis of reasoning, without them, we could not communicate with each other. How are we supposed to refer to a table, if ‘a table’ can be a table and not a table at the same time? which of the two are we referring to?

So when we use reasoning, we take the laws of logic for granted. This is the presupposition of the scientific system and of every logical system. But have you ever thought about how these laws exist? How can we explain their existence? How can we justify them?
Is it possible to explain numbers without using numbers? And logic without using logic? That can not be done. Godel, a famous mathematician, proved this concept: any logical system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Some might say that logic is a product of the human mind. But each person has a different mind from the others. That way logic would be an opinion. But logic is an absolute, regardless of who is speaking.

We could say that logic is something that the human mind recognizes. That’s true, but it doesn’t explain where it comes from.

We could say that logic is a convention. But this brings us to the first answer, because, if true, the logic would depend on the opinion of a majority. But the logic is the same for everyone. No one has ever voted to decide how these laws are to work. They exist regardless of what a majority might vote for.

We might think that the laws of logic are chemical reactions in our brains. But in this case, each brain has different chemistry, so each person would have different logical laws. Instead, the logical laws are always the same for every person, and the fact that we can communicate between us is proof of that.

We could say that these absolutes are functions of language. But each language is different from the others, the way of constructing sentences is different. So each language should have its own logical laws. But is not so.

We might think that the laws of logic are properties of the universe, such as gravity, electromagnetism, etc.
But the effect of gravity, electromagnetism and other laws are somehow measurable: we can measure mass, speed, temperature, etc. But how can we measure the laws of logic? It doesn’t make sense.
The laws of logic cannot be found anywhere in the universe, but they apply everywhere. So these laws are not properties of the universe.

The laws of logic are concepts. We can only think of the laws of logic, they are not material things. Logic is discovered through a process in the mind. We can represent these laws with pen and paper, by talking about them, or in some other way. Their representation is something material, but these laws are not material.

These laws are absolute, which means they don’t cease to exist if you don’t agree with them.
They do not change, neither with time nor with location. They are transcendent. They transcend space and time. If you go in one direction or another, they are always the same. Wherever you are they are the same. Whatever time we can think of, they are constant.
Let’s consider one thing: A person’s thoughts reflect his mind. A person thinks consistently as he is. Concepts are found in the mind, and thoughts reflect the mind.

So the conclusion that something is true via logic is based on the fact that these laws, which we take for granted, exist. The mere fact of wanting to demonstrate the truth of some reasoning demonstrates that we believe that there is an absolute truth, regardless of everyone’s opinions, which is undeniable according to logic. If you and I are discussing that one plus one equals two, and I say that it equals three, I am wrong, and you are right. This is because there is an absolute True, an indisputable truth that reflects reality.
This truth does not reside in us, in our opinion, or in human agreement, but resides outside and above our opinions.

With logical reasoning, we cannot justify the existence of logic. If we stop at the empirical reality, we reach a point of having to admit that things are as they are and we can do nothing but take them for granted.

At this point, we can instead start from another assumption: God exists and the Bible contains the word of God, and everything in the Bible is true. We presuppose that God has revealed that to us.
The revelations of the Bible are the basic foundation for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and morality.
The Bible tells us that God is a logical being, and he doesn’t lie. Laws of logic exist because they reflect the way God thinks. God created humans with the ability to understand logic and think using it.

Without God, we cannot justify the existence of these laws. Materialism and naturalism are allowed to use only material reality, they are not able to explain something immaterial. So they have to borrow their belief in the logic and uniformity of natural laws from the Bible.

Believing in the logic and uniformity of natural laws is an act of faith.

The fact that a pencil falls to the ground if we drop it is true today, and it was true yesterday. But how do we know that it will also be valid tomorrow? We have to believe that there is a reason why tomorrow’s laws of physics will be the same as today’s. We have faith in this. Because otherwise, the whole scientific method would be completely irrational. How do we prove that the pencil will fall tomorrow too? We have faith that it will happen because it has always been like that. But that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Tomorrow laws of logic may work differently, or disappear. We can only have a logical reason to believe that this will be the case if we assume that is God that controls physical laws, and he will keep them constant because of his character, as the Bible says.

If we take the truth of the Bible as an assumption, we can see that it doesn’t contain any logical contradiction.
Man-made religions, on the other hand, contain internal contradictions. For example, without a personal, logical and omnipotent God, as in Buddhism, we arrive at the same conclusions as atheism, not knowing how to explain the existence of logic.

If the Bible contains the truth, anything that contradicts the Bible is false. Religions like Islam or Judaism contradict the Bible, and they contradict themselves, so they fail to explain the existence of logic.

We must have clear in mind that the transcendental argument we are using contains circular logic: we are assuming what we want to prove. Circular reasoning is to be expected in this case, because we are proving a logical system, and as Godel has shown, circular reasoning is inevitable in these cases. But among the various arguments, this is the only one that gives an explanation for the existence of transcendentals.

In the next posts of this series we will dive deeper into showing the Bible does not contain logical contradictions, it correctly describes God, human nature and the relationship between man and God. I will try to show you the fact that the Bible is historically accurate and does not contain lies.
Why is it important that you understand this topic? The Bible contains the Old and New Testaments.

In the Old Testament, we know the truth about the creation of man and the universe, we understand how God created a perfect world without evil, so that man was happy in it and had fellowship with God, we realize that man disobeyed God, having the possibility to decide freely. This disobedience caused sin and death in the world.

In the New Testament, the Bible tells us how God sent Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, to overcome death and pay the price for our sins. God as a righteous judge should have punished us for our sins, but for the infinite love he has for us, he died on the cross and he is offering us eternal life.

Whoever believes in Jesus’ words and admits that he needs him as Savior, receives the right to live forever in the Kingdom of Heaven, where he will be able to see his glory. Whoever rejects him, does not accept the forgiveness of sins, and he will have to pay his eternal sentence in the Lake of Fire, where he will experience eternal spiritual suffering. Today you can prevent this from happening to you by making this decision.

If you have decided on Jesus, start reading the Bible, and start attending a Christian church, which believes totally in the Bible. Study the word of God, examine it carefully, looking for confirmation of what you read. Create your own case, evaluate the evidence, consult external sources, and think critically. No one to date has managed to disprove the Bible: do you accept this challenge?