Apologetics to the Glory of God

Formal Statement of the Transcendental Argument for God

A common objection to TAG is that it has not ever been formally stated. Of course, an argument need not be formally stated to constitute an argument, but it would perhaps be helpful to have the argument so stated. It is worth pointing out that there is not only one way to state TAG, and there have been attempts to state it formally in various ways, whether or not opponents (or proponents) of TAG think that these statements are sufficient or not. All of this aside, one of our readers came across James Anderson’s article on TAG and was inspired to write a formal statement of TAG that few could object to. Enjoy!




14 responses to “Formal Statement of the Transcendental Argument for God”

  1. Michael Riley Avatar

    Here we have conclusive proof that the transcendental argument is, when formally stated, circular.

  2. Noah Fence Avatar
    Noah Fence

    I desagree! What a great argument!

  3. Joe King Avatar
    Joe King

    The argument looks good as stated, but I would hesitate to use it because the emphasis of TAG should be placed on its content rather than its formal features.

  4. Nomios Avatar


    This argument is either making an arbitrary if…then statement or else presenting TAG with unstated (implicit) premises, and so the argument is circular. The conclusion is obviously false because the premise is false. This person simply have not stated the argument to avoid it from appearing circular.

  5. anita bathe Avatar
    anita bathe

    tag stinks. this looks like something my 3 yr-old would write. it is not cleanly stated and the way he tries to provide support for those premises leads to a slippery soap.

  6. Lou Segusi Avatar
    Lou Segusi

    One of the best articles I’ve read in some time.

  7. Bardrick Deeson Avatar

    This is a particular type of argument that is not an argument at all. You have represented perfectly a means of forestalling the debate on these issues and have extorted your adversary’s agreement with our undiscussed notions. This is merely an approach which circumvents logic and rationality through purely psychological pressure. You are out to divert attention away from your opponent by poisoning the well; attacking a person’s character and putting an end to the discussion without any debate actually taking place.

    This is the most irrational argument you could possibly offer. This is even worse than the stolen concept fallacy, although you are committing that here too. Existence exists, and it is impossible to rationally deny this axiom. You are essentially reducing your cognitive awareness to that of a potato with this absurd “argument”.

    The only real way to go about resolving these problems is to bring together classifications of actual existing entities we have observed and integrated. But existence exists and so God does not. There is no theory of concepts in the Judeo-Christian Bible, so I wish you the best in this endeavor. It is a dishonest venture and failure from the start.

  8. Harry Izabyrd Avatar
    Harry Izabyrd

    Your argument is invalid.

  9. Ritch L. Bloch Avatar

    Surely we should give some credit to the idea that an argument, to be philosophically acceptable, must be capable of syllogistic expression.

    Clearly those who have commented are either not following the link or are confused about its contents.

  10. roland Avatar

    After ferreting about I must confess that I remain a septic.

  11. David Byron Avatar

    Seems half baked.

  12. ZaoThanatoo Avatar

    I like Ritch’s comment the best.

    Chopped nuts and/or dried fruit make great additions to TAG.


  13. […] Formal Statement of the Transcendental Argument for God […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *