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."

Often it is claimed that atheism is a simpler explanation of reality, and that the application of Ockham's razor requires the conclusion God does not exist. This use of the simplicity argument is not as simple as it sounds.

Although the fact something exists does not demand that God exist, it is often thought that the existence of personal beings does suggest a personal beginning to the universe. We examine this more subtle argument for God's existence.

Examines the reality of epistemological ambiguity regarding God's existence and ultimate explanations, and suggests a theodicy for why this perplexing situation might be the case, without counting against God's existence.