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.
Traditional natural theology sets as it's goal to prove that God's existence is more likely than the alternative. But this leaves the opposite position as a rational possibility. In this essay I take a different approach and present an argument for the certainty of God's existence based on the characteristics of epistemology. I attempt to put teeth the the claim of presuppositionalism that "The proof God exists is that without God you can't prove anything."