 |
The Flâneur and the PhilosopherA lover of wisdom and an ambulatory social critic seek the good through friendship and conversation. Author: A podcast by The Natural Theologian
A lover of wisdom and an ambulatory social critic seek the good through friendship and conversation. joelcarini.substack.com Language: en Genres: Philosophy, Religion & Spirituality, Society & Culture Contact email: Get it Feed URL: Get it iTunes ID: Get it |
Listen Now...
I analyzed "The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence", and...it presupposes philosophy.
Monday, 22 September, 2025
In my last essay, I argued that what presuppositionalism calls “transcendental argumentation” philosophers call philosophy.But I wanted to put this thesis to the test. So I loaded up my streaming software and reacted to one presuppositionalist YouTuber’s rendition of “the transcendental argument for God’s existence” (TAG). (The YouTuber is Eli Ayala of Revealed Apologetics.)Watch the video below to find out what I discovered.After the video, you’ll find a summary of the arguments of the video and a few of my takeaways. Enjoy listening, and please subscribe to my YouTube channel, where I am closing in on 1000 subscribers (the required number for payments from ads).Video Summary(YouTube’s AI generated this time-stamped summary and…it was really good. Here you go.)In this video, Joel Carini, “The Natural Theologian,” reacts to Eli Ayala’s defense of the Transcendental Argument for God’s existence (TAG). Carini, with a background in a presuppositionalist seminary and studies in philosophy, argues that what presuppositionalists call “transcendental argumentation” is essentially what philosophy has been doing for centuries (1:06-2:06).1. Eli Ayala’s Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (8:17-9:09)Ayala’s argument for the truth of the Christian worldview is structured as:* Premise 1: If knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true.* Premise 2: Knowledge is possible.* Conclusion: Therefore, the Christian worldview is true.The video primarily focuses on the defense of Premise 1, which asserts that Christianity provides the necessary ontological and epistemological conditions for knowledge, while other worldviews supposedly collapse into skepticism or inconsistency (9:10-9:53).2. Preconditions of Knowledge According to Ayala (11:17-11:49, 14:25-15:05)Ayala argues that knowledge presupposes:* Objective truth: Grounded in God as the God of truth (15:50-16:03).* Reliability of human cognitive faculties: Justified by humans being created in the image of God (29:08-29:27).* Existence of universal and invariant logical laws: Grounded in the immutable, consistent nature of God (20:10-20:21).* Epistemic connection between mind and reality: Ensured by God’s creation being ordered according to his rational nature (16:04-16:22).* Enduring personal identity through time: Grounded in the idea of creation in the image of God (45:12-45:18).* Unity and diversity (“The One and the Many”): Addressed by the triune nature of God (43:50-45:11).3. My Philosophical Counter-ArgumentsCarini contends that each of Ayala’s “preconditions” is a philosophically controversial claim that require extensive philosophical work to demonstrate, rather than being self-evident or uniquely explained by Christianity (12:50-13:17, 35:28-35:46).Self-Refuting vs. Transcendental Arguments (4:04-8:15)Carini distinguishes between self-refuting arguments (like Aristotle’s defense of the law of non-contradiction), which demonstrate a proposition by the impossibility of its contrary, and transcendental arguments, which are more modern and linked to Kant’s idea of conditions of experience. He suggests that Ayala’s approach often leans more towards the former but applies it to complex Christian doctrines, which he believes is not as straightforward.Intelligibility of Reality and Truth (16:56-20:07)Carini argues that claiming “God is truth” doesn’t automatically explain the intelligibility of reality. One must first understand what truth is philosophically, a concept debated by philosophers for centuries. He questions starting from Christian premises to justify preconditions of knowledge without a prior philosophy of truth.Logic and God (25:12-28:30)Carini challenges the idea that logic needs a metaphysical foundation, especially one in a personal God. He raises the Euthyphro dilemma, suggesting that if God is the foundation of logic (or morality), it could lead to arbitrariness rather than necessity. He argues that the necessity of logic might suggest a Platonic reality transcending the gods, and while medieval Christian philosophy attempted to reconcile this, it’s not an obvious or simple conclusion.Reliability of Faculties and Evolutionary Epistemology (30:47-34:16)Carini points out that “reliability” is a specific epistemological concept (reliabilism) with its own debates. He agrees with Alvin Plantinga’s argument against naturalistic evolutionary accounts of cognition (that survival doesn’t necessarily mean truth-tracking), but stresses that this is a philosophical argument that does not depend on Christian premises.Skepticism, Polytheism, and Platonism (35:46-39:09)Carini notes that many philosophers embrace skepticism, not necessarily as nihilistic, but as a form of intellectual humility. He also argues that polytheism can have a unified metaphysical basis and that contemporary thinkers often move towards impersonal Platonic or deistic realities to explain phenomena not submitted to materialist explanations, rather than directly to a Trinitarian God.Conclusion (47:17)Carini concludes by emphasizing that presuppositionalism, despite its claims of distinctiveness, is engaging in philosophy and that the arguments it employs are deeply philosophical and require careful, nuanced engagement that often takes a lifetime to develop and defend. He urges the practice of philosophy as the proper means to address these complex questions.My Takeaways* What Eli calls “the transcendental argument” is really a “self-refutation” (not of him–of the other view). This goes back to Socrates’ elenchus, or at least Aristotle’s argument for the “law of contradiction.” It is almost as old as philosophy. If it’s Socrates’ elenchus, then it’s just philosophy.* If logic is based on the immutable nature of God, how does the proposition, “God is immutable” have its logical content? The doctrine of God cannot be logically prior to the “laws of logic.”* Eli’s verbal crutch is, “If you think about it…” which is just an admission that philosophy is required to get to his conclusions. Of course, not everyone who has “thought about it” has come to the same conclusion as Eli. But, even if I have, the point is to articulate the “thinking about it” that got you there.* There really is a Euthyphro dilemma for math and logic. If math and logic are grounded in a personal God, the most likely result is voluntarism, not “universal laws of logic.” The compatibility of a personal God with Platonic logical laws is a controversial philosophical claim, or how they’re related is controversial.* Reliabilism (“the reliability of our cognitive faculties”) is not how I would articulate a realist response to skepticism. Reliabilism, I believe, is a post-Cartesian answer that assumes a Cartesian skeptical problematic.The Natural Theologian is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Natural Theologian at joelcarini.substack.com/subscribe
