proof of god
The proof of God's existence
Arne Verster34 min read
Contents13 sections
Aa
Over the past year, I have dedicated myself to exploring the philosophical dimensions of presuppositional apologetics, primarily through an in-depth examination of Van Til’s works. That year of reading now turns outward: I want to set out a coherent argument for the existence of God, and I have kept it simple, so that friends without a background in philosophy can follow it.
Check out the following video for a good overview of what we'll discuss in more detail in this article...
Why do I believe in God?
Here I am retracing the thought of Cornelius Van Til, whose work I hold in great esteem, in his pamphlet 'Why I Believe in God':
In this pamphlet I tried to point out in simple terminology why I believe in the God of the Bible, the God of historic Reformed theology. The God I believe in is the triune God of the Bible. I believe in this God because He Himself has told me in the Bible Who He is, what I am, and what He, in Christ and by the Holy Spirit, has done for me... I was brought up on the Bible as the Word of God. Can I, now that I have been to school, still believe in the God of the Bible? Well, can I still believe in the sun that shone on me when I walked as a boy...? I could believe in nothing else if I did not, as back of everything, believe in this God. Can I see the beams underneath the floor on which I walk? I must assume or presuppose that the beams are underneath. Unless the beams were underneath, I could not walk on the floor...
*Van Til, Why I Believe in God ***(get the book here)
Working through presuppositional apologetics, I came to see how inseparable the God we defend is from the God we worship daily. That sounds trivial. It is not. Before I took up the presuppositional approach, the God I argued about during the week was not the God I worshipped on a Sunday...
In apologetics God was a distant entity whose existence had to be established by argument, and never quite could be. However good the arguments, full certainty stayed just out of reach.
That is a world away from the triune God I worship, the God of the old hymns.
I need Thee every hour
In joy or pain
Come quickly and abide
Or life is vain
I need Thee, O I need Thee
Every hour I need Thee
O bless me now, my Savior
I come to Thee
I have always confessed, and now understand far better, that I need God every moment of every day. Without Him, life has no meaning. In Him I have a blessed assurance through Christ that cannot be taken from me:
Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine
O what a foretaste of glory divine
Heir of salvation, purchase of God
Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood
Can you see the inconsistency? The moment I began arguing about God's existence, I stopped treating Him as the one "I need every hour." In my apologetic endeavours I was self-sufficient, reasoning my way to God without any sense of dependence on Him. My reasoning contradicted what I confessed in the pew.
Van Til showed me where the contradiction lay. The God I have worshipped since childhood, the God my parents introduced me to as the sustainer of my being, who formed me in secret and knew me before my existence was acknowledged (Psalm 139), who promises never to leave me nor forsake me because His love for me is eternal, is the very same God I have the honour of defending. I can no longer treat Him as a hypothesis awaiting verification, as though He were one more empirical claim.
I don’t deny that I was taught to believe in God when I was a child, but I do affirm that since I have grown up I have heard a pretty full statement of the argument against belief in God. And it is after having heard that argument that I am more than ever ready to believe in God.
*Van Til, Why I Believe in God ***(get the book here)
The paradox came home to me at a Bible study, when a friend prayed that God would give me strength and insight to argue for His existence in an upcoming discussion. How can we ask God for the strength to prove that God probably exists? What are we doing when we pray that prayer?
This is the heart of Van Til's approach, and it is the Bible's. God is not one more fact to be weighed as true or false. He is the ground on which any fact can be discussed at all, the one who gives all creation its essence. When we join the Christian community in acknowledging our need for God at every moment, that covers every part of life: He made us in His image, He grants us knowledge and life, and He sustains us continually. To use the life and intellect He provides in order to reject their source is the pinnacle of irrationality. This is why the Bible states, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'."
Why do I believe in God? Because He has chosen to love me. He is the prism through which all other facts are illuminated. He reveals Himself in the natural world and through Scripture, filling me with wonder that the vast, unfathomable Creator cares for me. He is the ultimate Certainty, in whose absence there is no surety.
The proof of God's existence
Having set out the picture, let me put the same points more formally. When someone asks for the evidence for God's existence, the question cannot be approached the way we approach other factual investigations. Asking for proof of God is like a fish asking for proof of water.
If I want to know whether my mother bought cookies, I look in the pantry. God cannot be checked for in that way. Treating every question as though it were that kind of question is the "crackers in the pantry fallacy" (as discussed in Bahnsen versus Stein).
God transcends the myriad of facts within the universe; He is the Creator who assigns essence to all things. He declared, "Let there be light," understanding the nature of light even before its manifestation in space and time. We cannot discover God through laboratory experiments, nor can He be found in natural settings, the sky, outer space, or distant planets. God does not depend on a larger framework from which He derives His identity. Reduce Him to one fact among the universe's many and He is no longer its Creator, and the deity under discussion is no longer the God of Christianity.
The Creator-creature distinction
Secondly, I do not believe it is necessary to furnish proof of God's existence in the conventional sense, aimed at convincing others of His reality. The Psalms and Paul's letter to the Romans assert that the knowledge of God's existence is inherent in everyone, leaving no one with an excuse for denial. Our task is not to persuade people that God exists but to unveil the recognition of God that already resides within them. Picture a man holding a beach ball under water. You do not have to convince him that the ball is there. You have to get him to release his grip, and what he was suppressing surfaces on its own.
The argument, and it holds for believer and unbeliever alike, can be put in a line: The proof of God's existence is that without Him, nothing can be proven. This says more than that our existence hinges on God. It says that without the intrinsic knowledge of God within us, our capacity to prove anything would be nonexistent. God defines the essence and existence of all facts and knows exhaustively the world He created; deny Him and logic and meaning collapse into subjective scepticism.
Proving God is like proving words or air: the request for proof uses the very element in question. You dispute the existence of words with words, and question the existence of air while breathing. The non-believer denying God is using language to dispute the existence of language itself.
I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted.
*Van Til, Why I Believe in God ***(get the book here)
Nothing can be proven without God, including the non-existence of God, because God is the precondition for intelligibility. His revelation gives us the interpretive framework that renders knowledge attainable. To acquire knowledge, we rely on several key elements:
- Laws of logic
- Reliability of memory
- Reliability of our reasoning processes
- Uniformity of nature
- The principle of predication (the ability to assert something about a subject)
- The existence of objective morality
I will take each in turn, showing how the Christian worldview underpins it and how rejecting God undermines the very foundation of our ability to know anything.
Laws of logic
From a Christian perspective, the laws of logic are not independent absolutes that stand over God, governing or constraining Him. God Himself is the supreme determiner of what is possible and impossible, and He is not bound by the laws of logic.
They are, rather, a reflection of God’s inherently consistent nature. They are the tool by which we, in our limited capacity, organize the facts of our experience, and we employ them analogically, so that our understanding of the world mirrors, on a finite scale, God’s infinite knowledge of His creation.
Claims that the laws of logic are evidently true, on the basis of nothing but their own self-testimony, negate themselves. For, the applicability of logic to the spatio-temporal universe cannot be deduced from logical principles alone. And yet, the meaning of the law of contradiction cannot be conceptualized apart from notions of incompatibility and repulsion that are supplied by a number of contrasting principles and spheres (e.g., space, time, facts, qualities, ideas, languages, cultures, feelings, etc.). For this reason, Van Til contends that one must acknowledge the Triune God Who harmonizes universals and particulars, logic and history, subjects and objects, before he can be justified in believing that any of these pairs overlap at any point.
Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox (get the book here)
The laws of logic, commonly referred to as the three laws of thought, are outlined as follows:
- The Law of Identity: A thing is identical to itself.
- The Law of Non-Contradiction: A thing cannot be both true and not true at the same time in the same respect.
- The Law of the Excluded Middle: Any statement is either true or false.
Familiar enough. Their characteristics are worth dwelling on:
- Transcendent: They apply beyond any one particular instance or situation.
- Universal: They are applicable in all situations and at all times.
- Unchanging: They remain constant through time.
- Immaterial: They are not physical objects or dependent on physical conditions.
The Christian worldview offers a coherent explanation for these characteristics; non-theistic perspectives do not. To rely on the laws of logic at all is already to presuppose a worldview consistent with the nature of God, who is Himself unchanging, immaterial, universal, and transcendent. In Christianity, the laws of logic reflect God's thinking, and humans, as God's creations, are called to emulate this aspect of His glory.
Moreover, as Bosserman points out, the laws of logic alone cannot account for their relevance to the natural world. There is no logical axiom stating that these laws must accurately describe the physical universe.
Every attempt to justify the laws of logic without resorting to the divine revelation found in Scripture is untenable.
Reliability of memory and reasoning
In every investigation, discussion, or routine event, we engage with the world through our rationality and memory. As creatures of God, our ability to reason and to perceive reality's consistency stems from Him, both directly and indirectly, and it is intrinsic to our nature to utilize our intellect to navigate and coherently make sense of the world. That capacity reflects the ultimate rational Being, who designed our minds to mirror His understanding and to learn about Him through both nature and Scripture.
Non-Christians, who ignore the Creator-creature relationship, do not recognize themselves as beings created by God. Instead, they attempt to position themselves as the ultimate authority, as their own deity. This traps them within their own minds (the egocentric predicament), leaving them with no assurance that their thoughts and reasoning accurately reflect the external world.
Does this imply that non-believers are incapable of rational thought? Absolutely not. They never embody the rebellion they profess. They remain, unknowingly, God's creations, and an innate divine testimony compels them towards rational behaviour. It is God's restraining grace that prevents them from descending into the complete irrationality their position demands.
Uniformity of nature
The uniformity of nature is intricately linked to the problem of induction: how do we justify the leap from observed phenomena to predictions about the unobserved? The Scottish philosopher David Hume articulated the dilemma best. All inductive reasoning presupposes that future events will mirror past ones, and offers no rational basis for the assumption.
If I drop a ball today and it falls to the ground, what guarantees that the same action tomorrow will yield the same result? The expectation relies on a belief in nature's uniformity, and on non-Christian assumptions that belief lacks any concrete justification and is simply arbitrary. Without a solid foundation for expecting nature's consistency, the entirety of scientific inquiry stands on shaky ground.
In contrast, the Christian worldview offers a compelling explanation for nature's uniformity. According to Christian doctrine, God is unchanging and orderly, and He designed the universe to reflect His nature (as echoed in Psalm 19). God has pledged to maintain the universe in a consistent pattern, notwithstanding His ability to intervene supernaturally. Thus, natural laws are seen as manifestations of God's regular governance over the cosmos, providing a reliable framework for daily life.
This allows Christians to navigate apparent paradoxes, such as believing both that dead people typically remain dead and that resurrection is possible. God does not violate His laws; He exercises His sovereignty to operate within the universe in diverse ways. Non-believers, lacking this foundational belief in a deliberate and consistent deity, resort to attributing phenomena to chance, and struggle to explain either uniformity or exceptions to it.
It is unsurprising, then, that the advent of scientific exploration occurred primarily within Christian societies, and that many higher education institutions were established under Christian auspices. That these institutions have since distanced themselves from their foundational beliefs accounts for much of the inconsistency evident in the academic sphere today.
Predication
Predication refers to the act of making an assertion or affirmation, where something is identified as the subject or predicate of a proposition, such as in the statement "the apple is red." This concept introduces us to the philosophical problem known as the "one and the many," which can be challenging to grasp. Van Til's work addresses it extensively, arguing that the Trinity, being simultaneously one and many, is what resolves it. The interplay between unity and diversity finds its resolution in the nature of God Himself.
The problem of the one and the many pertains to how we can make sense of the relationship between universal concepts (like "animals") and particular instances (such as "frog," which is a specific type of animal). Our ability to understand and navigate the world hinges on linking these universals and particulars. For example, when we recognize a frog as an animal, we are engaging in predication, combining the universal category of "animal" with the particular instance of "frog."
Throughout the history of philosophy, there has been an ongoing debate about whether universals (like the concept of "animal") or particulars (specific entities, such as frogs, dogs, and cats) should be considered the foundational reality. If particulars are deemed ultimate, the challenge arises in explaining how any sense of unity or commonality is achieved, given their inherent differences. Conversely, if universals are prioritized, the question then becomes how diversity and distinction among instances within a universal category (e.g., different horses within the concept of "horseness") can be explained.
Asserting that "the frog is an animal" presupposes a stable relationship between the particular (the frog) and the universal (animal). Without assuming such a fundamental interrelation, our ability to predicate, and thereby to know and understand the world, would be compromised.
Bosserman links this dilemma closely with rationality itself: the coherence between the many (particulars) and the one (universals) underpins our capacity for thought and understanding. Without a framework that reconciles the diversity and unity within our experience, the very basis of our rationality and predication is called into question.
Although it may initially seem impractical, the “one and many” question has vast implications. The epistemological problem regarding whether our sense perceptions correspond to external reality, is ultimately one of how we may be certain that our rational categories (the one) do justice to the spatio-temporal objects (the many) they supposedly represent.
Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox (get the book here)
The Christian worldview addresses the problem of the one and the many through the doctrine of the Trinity, as revealed in Scripture. God is presented as a singular being who exists in three distinct, co-eternal, and co-equal persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each fully embodying the divine essence. This concept of God as both one and many simultaneously offers a unique solution to the philosophical dilemma.
Van Til emphasizes that in the Godhead, unity and plurality are equally ultimate. The oneness of God does not overshadow His threeness, nor does the threeness compromise His oneness. That equal ultimacy within the very nature of God is what allows universals and particulars to coexist coherently in the world He created. So the doctrine of the Trinity does not only inform our theological understanding; it offers a resolution to a longstanding problem in philosophy.
The Trinity solves the problem, not as a theoretical explanation for how universal principles and ideas control matters of fact, but as a personal Authority Who is a perfect harmony of unity and diversity in Himself, and thus uniquely qualified to guide man in developing an analogous harmony in his own life and thought. Apologetically, the Trinitarian perspective carries with it an illuminating diagnosis of sinful thinking as the self-defeating attempt to treat principles found in creation, rather than the Creator, as the ultimate sources of unity and/or diversity in reality.
Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox (get the book here)
For more detail on the topic, check out How the Trinity explains the problem of the one and the many.
Objective morality
That the existence of God provides the only objective basis for morality is a well-established argument. Let me come at it from a slightly different angle, within the context of factual investigation:
When we engage in any form of inquiry, there is an underlying expectation of honesty in reporting our findings. Posed with the question "Does God exist?", we expect a response that is truthful and free from deceit.
This expectation aligns seamlessly with the Christian worldview, which posits God as the epitome of truth, incapable of lying. As beings created in His image, humans are called to emulate God's truthful nature. Therefore, the commitment to truthfulness in our investigations and answers is not merely a social convention or a practical necessity but a reflection of the divine character.
In a world without God, the imperative to be truthful loses its objective foundation, becoming contingent on subjective or societal preferences. Situate that expectation within the framework of being image-bearers of a truthful God, and honesty is not merely preferable in inquiry and discourse; it is necessary.
Closing thoughts on the proof
Cornelius Van Til articulated a fundamental principle regarding human reasoning: it must be analogical, always acknowledging God as the ultimate reference point for all truth and knowledge. Human understanding is derivative, relying on God for the capacity to know anything at all. Begin anywhere else, and you find yourself in the egocentric predicament, trapped within your own subjective experience, which inevitably spirals into scepticism and absurdity. This is itself an indirect proof of God's existence: the logical endpoint of not presupposing God is absurdity, and to hold absurdity as a conclusion is itself nonsense.
If God is not the presupposed foundation of our understanding, knowledge itself becomes unattainable. This is not merely a philosophical conclusion; it is echoed within Scripture, which teaches that knowledge begins with God. Apart from God, not only does moral and ethical reasoning falter, but the very possibility of knowledge and understanding is undermined.
The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge
, ESV
When the discussions are concluded, the unbeliever will often take absurdity over Christ. That preference stems not from a logical conclusion but from a deeper, more personal resistance: an attachment to sin. It is not uncommon to encounter atheists who vigorously assert that they know "absolutely nothing." Asserted as a piece of absolute knowledge, that claim contradicts its own premise and defeats itself.
The proof can thus be summarised as follows:
(1) Every inference and act of predication presupposes the existence of the absolute and personal harmony of unity and diversity, within the Triune God.
(2a) Denials that the Trinity exists are acts of predication.
[(2b) Acceptance that the Trinity exists is an act of predication.]
Therefore, (3) The Triune God exists
Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox (get the book here)
You may accept the proofs presented or reject them. Both acceptance and rejection are acts of predication, and both presuppose the existence of the Triune God as depicted in Scripture. Metaphorically speaking, heads the Christian wins, tails the unbeliever loses. All reasoning, including the very act of deciding on the validity of proofs concerning God's existence, relies on the logical and metaphysical foundations provided by the Christian worldview.
The triune God sustains everything at every moment, and His reality is so fundamental to all aspects of existence and knowledge that even the attempt to deny Him tacitly affirms the framework He establishes.
The implication is profound. The acknowledgement or denial of God does not finally hinge on the evidence or arguments presented; it is settled in the presuppositional foundations of how we understand reality itself. To engage in any form of predication or rational discourse is to navigate within territory marked out by the Christian God, from whom there is no ultimate concealment or escape.
Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,"
even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you.
, ESV
Van Til tells of a girl he saw during a train ride, seated on her father's lap, from which position she slapped him in the face. Her ability to slap her father was entirely contingent upon him; without his support, sustaining her at that height, her act of defiance would not have been possible.
The same holds for denying God. Just as the girl's slap presupposes her father's support, the denial of God presupposes His existence and sustenance. The very capacity to question, doubt or reject God is supplied by the God who upholds the one doing it.
Why doesn't everyone profess belief in God?
If the knowledge of God is inherent in all people, why does not everyone believe? The question is a fair one, and it turns on the terms involved.
On a fundamental level, everyone does believe in God, because the knowledge of God is an inescapable reality, both within us and in the world around us. That inherent knowledge does not always translate into an open profession of faith. The difference lies in the response to it: some suppress this truth in unrighteousness, favouring the worship of creation over the Creator.
The move from suppressing God's truth to professing faith in Him cannot be achieved through human effort. It requires a supernatural act: the regeneration of the heart by the Holy Spirit. This occurs as people encounter the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has the power to transform hearts and minds, moving them from rebellion to redemption.
The Bible sets this transformation in context. Despite our rebelliousness (the slap in the face we have been describing), Christ died for us while we were still sinners. That is unmerited grace, and it is the way back to God across the gap our sin created.
I wish I could spend more time on this issue, but for the sake of brevity, I urge you to please follow this link and read up more on what God did to save sinners.
Circular reasoning
The crux of the argument is that acknowledging the existence of the triune God, as disclosed in Scripture, is a prerequisite for any discussion of the existence of God. Every statement or judgment about God's existence, or the lack of it, presupposes the reality of God.
This leads to a pivotal question about the basis of our understanding: how can one be certain that Scripture is indeed the Word of God?
We anchor the Christian worldview in the assertion that the triune God revealed in Scripture is the precondition for all intelligibility, and we have seen that rejecting that premise drives a worldview towards inevitable absurdity. From here the discourse becomes more intricate.
Given the myriad of worldviews available, refuting each one individually to prove Christianity’s truth is impractical, if not impossible. It would yield only a probabilistic conclusion rather than absolute certainty, since one cannot conclusively negate an infinite array of alternatives. It is common in such debates for sceptics to shift rapidly from one worldview to the next as each is refuted, from atheism to Islam to Buddhism.
When a discussion reaches the point where the sceptic must keep switching worldviews to find some theoretical alternative that could rival Christianity, the debate has concluded. His objections are no longer grounded in a worldview he genuinely holds; they are there to avoid the implications of the Christian one at all costs. Sye Ten Bruggencate's answer is to insist that debates deal with the worldviews the participants actually hold, rather than hypothetical alternatives. Arguing against Christianity by appealing to an unrelated worldview, such as Islam to defend atheism, is unproductive, and it reveals a reluctance to confront the foundational challenge posed by the Christian claim of a triune God as the basis for all reality and knowledge.
The scepticism that posits "some worldview out there might one day contend with the Christian worldview" holds limited practical significance, yet it remains a notable theoretical challenge. How, then, can we affirm that Christianity is the singular true worldview? The answer rests on the authority of the revealer, as communicated through the Bible. The Bible positions itself as the unique source of the preconditions necessary for making sense of the world, claiming the exclusive capability to furnish the foundations of intelligibility. If the Bible does provide these preconditions, as it asserts, it follows that Christianity is the sole worldview equipped to do so.
Here we, like many presuppositionalists before us, encounter a potential pitfall. If we accept God's Word as authoritative merely for its conceptual utility, we have adopted a framework that enables us to avoid absurdity without validating the ontological truth of Christianity. The necessity of thinking within a Christian framework does not by itself affirm its objective reality (this objection is otherwise known as the Stroudian objection. Read more about it here).
The biblical narrative provides more than just a conceptual framework for humans to interpret their world; it reveals a profound ontological truth: God created both the human mind and the objects it perceives. Thus, according to Scripture, our understanding of the world inherently aligns with the reality of creation because God designed both our cognitive faculties and the external world. This divine orchestration ensures our thoughts correspond with reality, effectively addressing and overcoming the egocentric predicament. This ontological claim has epistemological consequences. If Christianity were a mere conceptual scheme used to justify beliefs, it would lose all its force.
Rather than being autonomous entities whose thoughts might randomly align with or diverge from reality, we are created in God's image, with a purpose that includes our capacity for true knowledge. This viewpoint fundamentally alters the conversation about the relationship between our minds and the world around us.
What, then, of the critique of circular reasoning: the claim that "The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is"? Such criticisms, including those expressed by respected theologians like R.C. Sproul, misunderstand the presuppositional approach. The argument for the Bible's divine authority does indeed originate from the Bible itself, but this is not circular reasoning in the vicious sense; it is a reflection of the coherent and self-authenticating nature of Scripture.
Van Til contends that one must acknowledge the Triune God Who harmonizes universals and particulars, logic and history, subjects and objects, before he can be justified in believing that any of these pairs overlap at any point. For the same reason, God’s Self-testimony in Scripture must be accepted on the basis of His unparalleled authority alone (Heb 6:13; ), since the rest of reality cannot even bear a consistent witness to itself apart from His illumination.
Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox (get the book here)
Remember the way God reveals Himself to us in Scripture:
For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself
, ESV
God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”
, ESV
God's declaration to Moses, "I am who I am," in , encapsulates a profound truth about His nature in what might superficially appear as a circular statement. It conveys the depth of His eternal, unchangeable, and self-sufficient nature. Unlike human beings, whose identity might be grounded in relationships, achievements, or attributes, God's identity is intrinsic to His very essence. He is the foundational being upon which all else depends, not defined by anything outside Himself.
For God, then, "I am who I am" is not an evasion but a declaration of His absolute and independent reality. Seemingly circular, it is profoundly informative, and no created being could say it.
All foundational reasoning involves a degree of circularity. The validity of human reasoning, the reliability of memory, and the laws of logic all presuppose their own integrity in order to be defended or proven. That circularity is not fallacious when applied to God's revelation, because God's revelation in Scripture is self-authenticating and provides the indispensable foundation on which all other reasoning becomes meaningful and coherent.
The revelation of God in the Bible thus stands as a necessary and non-fallacious circle that validates our ability to reason, understand logic, and trust our memories. It not only asserts itself as true but enables and sustains the very possibility of truth and knowledge in our world.
The Holy Spirit / Christ's sheep hear His voice and the testimony of Scripture
From the outset, we've established that everyone possesses knowledge of God, as He reveals Himself both around and within us. Just as we recognize the voice of a familiar person calling us from a distance, we innately recognize God's voice in Scripture. This is not a matter of analyzing or deducing; it is an immediate, almost instinctual apprehension of divine presence and authority in the words of the Bible.
John Calvin, a pivotal figure in the Reformation, articulates the point beautifully. Our recognition of God's voice in Scripture, he suggests, is as immediate and unreasoned as a baby's innate ability to distinguish sour from sweet. Infants do not engage in analytical thought before preferring sweetness or recoiling from sourness, and neither do we before recognizing the divine authorship and authority of Scripture. It is like hearing our Father's voice: it resonates at a level deeper than intellectual acknowledgement, touching something inherent in our nature.
We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith. And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them— not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God. For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.
**Belgic Confession, **Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
Bosserman expands beautifully on the above by writing:
God’s Word in Scripture is not self-confirming in the simple sense that it is followed by the addendum “and this word is trustworthy” (although this appears on occasion—Matt 5:18; ; Rev 21:5; etc.). Instead, it is self-confirming as a light which so illuminates every other aspect of creation that they respond with their own unique testimonies to God’s nature and existence (Ps 36:9). Thus, it is better to speak of the proof for God as an instance of “spiral” reasoning, which begins with God’s self-testimony, turns in His light to evaluate other aspects of reality, and finally returns with an ever more refined and confirmed vision of God.
Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox (get the book here)
But we have to start with ourselves (i.e we cannot have knowledge of God from the outset)
The concept of "starting with ourselves", or what is often referred to as the "order of being" versus the "order of knowing", can seem perplexing at first glance. This appendix clarifies it and addresses a common misconception about the presuppositional approach.
The objection rests on a misunderstanding. Critics assume that by advocating that we "start with God," presuppositionalists claim somehow to transcend personal consciousness, beginning their epistemological journey from a divine or external standpoint. That is not what is meant. To "start with God" is to prioritize divine revelation and God's reality as the lens through which all truths are illuminated. It is not a claim to have positioned oneself outside of human limitations, but an acknowledgement of God's ultimate authority and revelation as the foundational basis for interpreting all of existence.
The critique that humans can only know in a semi-autonomous manner, with the knowledge of God following the knowledge of ourselves, overlooks a critical aspect of Christian anthropology. Humans are created in the image of God, with the knowledge of God inherently revealed within them. That intrinsic knowledge is not an external addition to human consciousness but a fundamental component of it.
Van Til writes:
The cosmos-consciousness, the self consciousness, and the God-consciousness would naturally be simultaneous... Man would at once with the first beginning of his mental activity see the true state of affairs as to the relation of God to the universe as something that was known to him in order afterwards to ascertain whether or not God exists. He would know that God is the Creator of the universe as soon as he knew anything about the universe itself.
Van Til,*** Introduction to Systematic Theology*** (get book here)
If we begin the course of spiral reasoning at any point in the finite universe, as we must because that is the proximate starting point of all reasoning, we can call the method of implication into the truth of God a transcendental method. That is, we must seek to determine what presuppositions are necessary to any object of knowledge in order that it may be intelligible to us. It is not as though we already know some facts and laws to begin with, irrespective of the existence of God, in order then to reason from such a beginning to further conclusions. It is certainly true that if God has any significance for any object of knowledge at all, the relation of God to that object of knowledge must be taken into consideration from the outset. It is this fact that the transcendental method seeks to recognize.
Van Til,*** Introduction to Systematic Theology*** (get book here)
Hence, we can take our proximate starting point as any fact in the universe, and we will be able to show how unless God is taken into account from the beginning (ultimate/logical starting point) there would be no knowledge at all. One of the reasons we can trust that our proximate starting point isn't blinding or ultimate is because we give weight to God's light as the most important light of all the lights we might encounter.
This should not be controversial. God does indeed reveal to us in Scripture that He reveals Himself to us, in us. The knowledge of God is inescapable.
John Calvin also makes the point near the start of his Institutes:
But, though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves be intimately connected, the proper order of instruction requires us first to treat of the former, and then to proceed to the discussion of the latter
Conclusion
It is my heartfelt wish that these reflections have given you a deeper understanding of the ground we have covered. Return to Van Til's words at the outset. Just as one trusts in the sun that has illuminated his path since childhood, or in the unseen beams that support the floor beneath him, so belief in God serves as the bedrock of our reality. That analogy captures the essence of presuppositional thought: the necessity of God as the foundation of all knowledge, understanding, and existence itself.
There is no escaping His presence, for we are all destined to encounter Him, whether in this life or the next, and we will all face His justice. That is what makes repentance and the acceptance of Jesus Christ's sacrifice urgent, and what makes this more than a theological assertion.
It is with a prayerful heart that I encourage you to consider these words and what they mean for your life. The invitation to explore and embrace the truth of God's Word is open to all, and my hope is that you will not dismiss it until it is too late.
*"I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy." *- Van Til, Why I Believe in God