Greg Bahnsen is considered by many to be the master of presuppositional argumentation. His writings and debates are thought to be the epitome of how to argue that "the proof God exists is that without God it is impossible to prove anything." But is this true? Did Bahnsen really argue presuppositionally? This article questions this claim, and instead suggests that Bahnsen failed to truly argue transcendentally. Even though this is so? Bahnsen himself did provide us the tools we need to correct this going forward.