How Not to use the Trandscendental Argument for the Existence of God

Before I point out objections, let me just say that the Rev. Matt Slick is the owner of CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry), he is a Calvinist, and a man I greatly respect and have admired for many years. I really do appreciate his intentions in the video, and I appreciate how he articulates the gist of TAG  providing an understandable explanation and provides a number of answers to common objections in a short period of time. Admittedly the clip is short, however, there are a couple of weaknesses to the version of TAG he presents in the video, although they are not weaknesses per say to the audience he is addressing, the issues remain.

My first objection is that Rev Slick does not start or begin with the existence of God, rather in the video his starting point is logic, thus the method he uses in the video is “rationalism”, or “classical apologetics”.

My second objection is the limited audience, he addresses atheists, which is fine so far as it goes, but using his method, this means any believer in a god or gods can claim the valid use of TAG, and this is not so my friends! So the atheist may soften their position to agnosticism and ask the old question, “assuming you’ve proved a god exists, which God exists, how can we know which one?”

Anyway listen for yourself, and let me know what you think.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s