Transcendental Argument Not Not Even Wrong

The double not in the title isn’t a grammatical error of a double negative. It is actually saying that the claim that the transcendental argument isn’t refuted by the philosophical argument called “not even wrong” which suggest that the transcendental argument is so whacked that it’s not even logically wrong let alone being logically right. Like saying “the beefy delight, tornado blkafa max is make”.

The Transcendental Argument is the philosophical apologetic that logic, science, knowledge and morality cannot be accounted for without a self existent eternally powerful God. Fundamentally, it points out that the presuppositions of the other party’s worldview cannot be accounted for without eternal knowledge or accepting universals, like logic, as being utterly immaterial.

I really like what this website says about it:

Here is a good lesson on the argument (granted he’s not a proponent of leading with or wholly maintaining this argument during a debate:

Now I did add “knowledge” in there because without knowledge, we can know nothing of what can be known including the fundamentals of the argument. Therefore base-lining the argument with epistemology, through logic, as being the starting point of the argument. Granted, most apologists do not lead with this apologetic, some do. The Transcendental Argument is fundamentally a solid method of Presuppositional Apologetics in which I believe is a very biblical approach to defending the faith against the argument God. The two reasons for this are that most other apologetics allow for God to be put on Trial, the defender is you (providing evidence), and the judge and jury is the unbeliever. When faced with Romans 1, which ultimately says that people suppress the truth about their knowledge of God in unrighteousness, this should lead the unbeliever’s worldview to the trial stand and not God. This passage nor apologetic leaves any room for true atheism before God. I do give that perhaps you may argue that one cannot prove the Christian God with this argument; however, most if not all gods of other religions has key flaws in their character. The bible says God has made it plain to them so that they are without excuse. Not that there is just a god, but that there is a specific one with specific attributes (otherwise, they would have an excuse right?!).

This Cornelius Van Til’ish form of apologetics is re-gaining modern traction due to folks like Dr. Jason Lisle (Astrophysicist), Sye Ten Bruggencate (Canadian Presuppositional Apologist) and Eric Hovind (the son of the infamous Kent Hovind and president of Creation Today) and many others.

This argument fundamentally answers that the law of non-contradiction can not be violated and to reason existence and reason as an axiom bypasses the infinite regress problem. This, fundamentally is a rejection of God and an acceptance of living with a worldview filled with illogical contradictions. One might even say that many people’s worldviews are “not even wrong”.

Anyway, to say that this argument is so absurd that “it’s not even wrong” is absurd. There is no basis for this and I submit that this is a cop out. Funny, because most opponents of this method often say that the transcendental argument is a dodge, but what they neglect to acknowledge is that opponents are stuck with a problem they can’t solve without turning to God and, to deny it, would mean they need to attack the validity of the argument and reduce it down to name calling, ad hominem argument or outright saying that its “circular” and doesn’t make sense (not even wrong).

Is the argument “not even wrong”? Debate Sye Ten Bruggencate and see where it gets you, other then accepting you are ok with continuing in a worldview that’s viciously circular, unaccounted for or included with a few gut wrenching contradictions.