What Is Transcendental Argument For Divine Revelation (TADR)

A case for Divine Revelation

P.S. I’ve written this article to be accessible to both readers familiar with philosophy and those who are not. If you’re new to these ideas, don’t worry—I’ve included simple layman examples at the end of each section to make the concepts easy to grasp. And if you’re more philosophically inclined, you can read the full academic paper here:

Transcendental Argument For Divine Revelation (TADR)

By definition, God is transcendent and infinitely more than us to be our creator. In contrast, we are finite beings only capable of grasping finite concepts within our purview. To feel the force of this gap, consider a smaller example: Your dog cannot understand your taxes, your phone, or your sense of purpose. And that’s even though you and your dog are both finite creatures, sharing biological similarities, emotions, and even some rudimentary communication. Now, if the gap between two finite beings can be that great, how much more impossible is it for humans—finite, temporal, embodied—to grasp the essence of an infinite God?

This is where every religion, philosophy, and spiritual path that claims to know God breaks down. Because if God is truly infinite and transcendent, human beings cannot climb up to Him through logic, intuition, feeling, analogy, or moral effort.

And that leads us to the question at the heart of the Transcendental Argument for Divine Revelation (TADR)

What is TADR In Plain English

A transcendental argument does not start by proving things. It asks a much deeper question: what must be true for the thing in question to be possible at all. This is the same thing TADR is doing here.

TADR doesn’t try to prove God’s existence.
It asks:

What conditions must exist for finite human beings to have real knowledge of an infinite God?

Why Human Reason Alone Can’t Reach God

If God is infinite and we are finite, then every purely human attempt to “reach” God collapses before it begins. TADR shows that the problem isn’t that our arguments are weak—it’s that no human method can bridge the infinite–finite gap in principle.

Here’s how the major approaches fall short:

A. Natural Theology (design, cosmology, moral arguments)

Natural theology argues from creation to Creator:
from motion to a First Mover, from design to a Designer, from morality to a Moral Lawgiver.

These arguments can point to a transcendent cause.
But they cannot tell us:

• Who is that cause is,

• What he is like,

• What He intends, or

• Whether the concepts we use even refer to the real God.

You can infer “a Necessary Being exists,” but you cannot know whether your idea of that Being corresponds to the actual transcendent reality.

Result: Natural theology cannot secure the referent; it cannot tell you that your concept “God” truly tracks God Himself.

B. Analogies (“God is like…” statements)

Analogies help describe how our language stretches toward transcendence, but analogy itself does not grant access to the divine reality.

• An analogy may be helpful,

• but it cannot guarantee truth,

• and it cannot verify correspondence with God’s actual nature.

A million analogies still leave us unsure whether any of them map onto God at all.

Result: Analogy offers linguistic flexibility, not epistemic contact. No verification.

C. Concepts and Philosophy

Philosophy can reason to a Necessary Being or an Unconditioned Ground of existence. However, conceptual inference hits a wall the moment we discuss a personal God.

You cannot infer:

• identity,

• personality,

• will,

• intention,

• or self-disclosure

from abstract metaphysical principles.

Concepts can suggest that Something ultimate exists, but they cannot reveal who that Someone is. Result: Philosophy can gesture toward deity, but it cannot reveal a personal God.

D. Externalist Theories of Reference (“We refer by being in the right causal chain”)

Some argue that we can refer to God the way we refer to mountains or electrons—by being in the right causal relation to Him.

But this fails for one simple reason:

Human beings have no direct causal or perceptual access to God.

We cannot detect God’s essence, actions, or presence the way we detect physical objects. So externalism collapses: we cannot track a transcendent referent

Result: No referent = the term “God” floats without anchor.

E. Subjective Spirituality and Inner Experience (“I feel God”)

Modern spirituality assumes:

• intuition,

• inner peace,

• psychological impressions,

• mystical experiences

can give knowledge of God.

But experiences are:

• internal,

• conditioned by culture,

• impossible to verify,

• and compatible with contradictory worldviews.

A Hindu mystic, an Islamic Sufi, a New Age meditator, and a charismatic Christian can all feel “the divine” and reach completely different conclusions.

Result: Experience can be meaningful but never authoritative or truth-bearing.

Moral Effort and Ethical Purity (“If I become good, I will know God”)

Moral growth can refine character. But it does not bridge metaphysical asymmetry.

Goodness does not generate knowledge of transcendence.
It may humble the soul, but it does not reveal God’s identity or nature.

Result: Ethics can prepare you for revelation but cannot replace revelation.

Taken together, these approaches show the same problem: They have no way to secure the referent or verify that it is truth-bearing. We can form ideas about God, but we cannot ensure the referent and thus cannot have truth-bearing knowledge about Him.

Consider this example:
Imagine trying to understand the sun while standing underground.

• You can study the soil (natural theology), but the soil only tells you something caused it—nothing about what the sun is actually like.

• You can make comparisons (“the sun is like a lamp”), but you still have no idea whether the analogy matches the real sun.

• You can form concepts (“a bright sphere of energy”), but concepts are guesses, not contact with the sun itself.

• You can feel warmth on your skin (inner experience), but warmth doesn’t tell you the sun’s identity, nature, or structure.

• You can live morally underground, but ethical improvement doesn’t reveal the sun.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot know the sun until the sun shines into the underground—or you are brought out into the light.

The Problem of Infinite Distance — and Why Revelation Is a Necessity

The core issue TADR highlights is not psychological or emotional; it’s structural because there exists a qualitative gap between finite beings and an Infinite being that cannot be bridged by human effort, it creates what TADR calls the Problem of Infinite Distance:

• Finite minds can only operate with finite concepts.

• The infinite cannot be contained within finite conceptual structures.

• No amount of reasoning, analogy, moral striving, or mystical intuition can “scale up” to the divine essence.

The gap is not just large but impossible by default, so it’s no longer a question of whether we can reason our way up to God, but what “How could true knowledge of God be possible at all?”

The answer TADR proposes is Revelation.

Here is the simple force of the argument:

1. If we can know anything true about God, something must make that possible.

2. We are finite; God would be infinite.

3. Finite concepts cannot bridge the infinite–finite divide by themselves.

4. Therefore, human ascent—reason, analogy, or intuition—cannot reach God.

5. So if we know God at all, it must be because God revealed Himself.

6. Revelation is not optional—it is the transcendental condition that makes theological knowledge possible.

Without God revealing himself, the word “God” becomes ambiguous rather than truth-bearing. With revelation, the infinite takes the initiative to bridge the gap we cannot cross.

This is the philosophical heart of TADR:
Revelation is not an added bonus to theology—it is the very ground that makes theology possible.

What Genuine Revelation Would Have to Look Like

If revelation is the only possible bridge across the infinite-finite divide, then God’s act of self-disclosure becomes the foundation—not the supplement—of all theological knowledge. Revelation doesn’t merely give us information about God — It grounds the very possibility of speaking truthfully about Him at all.

Once this is clear, the next question naturally arises:

If revelation is required for knowledge of God, then what would genuine divine revelation have to look like—philosophically?

TADR gives a precise answer.
These criteria do not come from Christian theology; they fall out of the logic of the argument itself. If God is infinite and personal (which he needs to be in order to communicate revelation), and if humans are finite and dependent, then revelation must satisfy specific conditions in order to actually work as revelation.

Below are the five criteria that follow necessarily from TADR.

Ontological Adequacy

Revelation must bridge the infinite–finite gap in a way that is ontologically coherent. It must give finite creatures real access to the infinite without:

1. Collapsing God into creation (making Him just a bigger or nicer creature), or

2. Dissolving humanity into the divine (erasing the Creator–creature distinction).

If a revelation fails here, it fails everywhere:

• If God is collapsed into creation, He stops being transcendent and therefore stops being the metaphysically ultimate ground of truth.

• If humanity is collapsed into God, then any “revelation” becomes subjective self-projection rather than an objective disclosure from a distinct divine agent.

Either way, the claim becomes unverifiable, because there is no longer a real, ontological difference between the revealer and the receiver.
And without that distinction, revelation cannot function—there is no “God speaking to man”, only man speaking to himself.

A layman example of this would be:

Imagine you want to learn about the ocean. Two mistakes are possible:

1. You shrink the ocean down to a cup of water and say, “This is the whole thing.”
   — Now you’ve lost the ocean’s real nature.

2. You jump into the ocean and say, “I am the ocean.”
   — Now there’s no difference between you and what you’re trying to learn.

In both cases, there is no meaningful knowledge. Either the object becomes too small, or the subject becomes too big. True revelation must avoid both errors:

God must remain God, and humans must remain human — yet a real bridge must exist between them.

Explanatory Power

If revelation truly comes from the ultimate ground of reality, then it must illuminate the fundamental structure of reality itself. The source that makes the world intelligible must also be able to make itself intelligible. Therefore, genuine revelation must account for the features of existence that every worldview must eventually explain:

• Unity and diversity:
  Why the world is one coherent system yet full of distinct beings. The problem of one and many.

• The problem of universals:
  Why abstract properties (goodness, beauty, triangularity, justice) apply to many different instances, and what makes those instances intelligibly related.
  A revelation from the ground of being must explain how universals exist—whether in God, in creation, or in both.

• Truth, meaning, and rationality:
  What makes thought possible, why logic holds universally, and why our minds can track reality.

• Objective morality:
  Why moral truths bind all humans universally and are not merely cultural agreements or personal preferences.

• Being and becoming:
  How a changing world depends on an unchanging ground.
  Any revelation from the ultimate must make sense of why anything exists at all.

If a purported revelation cannot explain these basic metaphysical and epistemic structures, then it cannot plausibly be the disclosure of the One who grounds those structures.
In short:

Revelation from the ultimate source must explain the ultimate features of reality.
If it cannot, it is not divine revelation.

A layman example of this would be:

Imagine someone claims to be the engineer who designed an entire computer system.
If they cannot explain:

• how the hardware and software interact (unity & diversity),

• how the operating system knows what “files” or “programs” are (universals),

• how the processors follow fixed rules (logic and rationality),

• or why security protocols must be obeyed (morality),

You instantly know they’re not the real designer.

Likewise, anyone claiming to reveal the God who authored the universe must be able to explain the basic “operating system” of reality. If they can’t, their claim collapses.

Coherence

If revelation comes from a perfect, rational, and truthful God, then it must exhibit internal coherence across every domain it touches. A true divine disclosure cannot affirm contradictions, violate its own metaphysical claims, or undermine the rational order it supposedly established.

This coherence must hold at multiple levels:

• Metaphysical coherence:
  Its claims about God, being, causality, and the nature of reality must not contradict one another.

• Theological coherence:
  Its statements about God’s identity, attributes, actions, and intentions must form a unified whole.

• Ethical coherence:
  The moral principles it teaches must align with its metaphysics—a revelation cannot declare universal moral obligations while grounding reality in pure voluntarism or relativism.

• Rational coherence:
  It must affirm the stability of logic, truth, and rational norms, not undermine them.

A revelation that contains contradictions or unstable metaphysical commitments cannot come from a perfectly rational source. Contradictions indicate either:

1. Anon-rational deity, which undercuts the possibility of divine truth. Or

2. A human fabrication, reflecting human inconsistency, cultural layering, or later edits.

Either way, such a revelation cannot ground meaningful theological knowledge.

Coherence is not a luxury; it is a transcendental requirement.
If God is the ground of reason itself, His revelation must reflect the rational unity of His nature.

A layman example of this would be:

If a doctor tells you,
“Your heart is perfectly healthy — but also failing,” you immediately know something is wrong.

A real expert doesn’t contradict themselves. Confusion signals either ignorance or deception — but not truth. Likewise, a true revelation from God cannot talk out of both sides of its mouth. If it does, the source is not divine rationality but human confusion.

Historicity

If God is personal rather than a mere abstract force, then genuine revelation must involve personal action in history. A personal agent reveals Himself by doing, speaking, and acting—not by remaining a timeless idea or private intuition.

Because human beings are temporal, embodied, and historically situated, revelation must meet us within the structures of our existence. This means:

• Concrete events,

• Real encounters,

• Publicly accessible acts,

• Communicable disclosures,

• And historically traceable claims.

A revelation that occurs only as an internal feeling or timeless abstraction is epistemically useless: it cannot be verified, shared, or distinguished from imagination, psychology, or cultural projection.

Likewise, a revelation outside time (pure ideas, mystical emanations, wordless intuitions) cannot bridge the infinite–finite divide, because finite creatures only have access to realities that intersect with the temporal world.

Therefore:

If a personal God reveals Himself, He must reveal Himself in history—
through actions and events that enter the human domain of time, memory, and witness.

This is not a theological preference; it is a transcendental necessity.
A revelation that never touches history is indistinguishable from a myth, a metaphor, or a psychological impression. A revelation that enters history becomes public, testable, and capable of grounding theological knowledge.

A layman example of this would be:

Imagine someone claims they were taught advanced physics by a visiting scientist from another country. You ask:

• When did he come?

• Where did you meet him?

• Who else saw him?

• What experiments did he show you?

• What evidence is there he was ever here?

If they say, “Oh, he never came here physically. I just felt his presence and had ideas in my mind,” you immediately know the claim has no weight.

If a real person teaches you, they must show up somewhere.

Likewise, if God personally reveals Himself, the revelation must show up in history.
Otherwise, it remains indistinguishable from imagination.

Transformative Participation

If revelation comes from an infinite and personal source, then knowing that source cannot be a matter of receiving information alone. A finite mind can process concepts, arguments, and symbols—but it cannot, by its own power, apprehend an infinite reality. Something in the knower must be elevated or transformed in order to receive what exceeds finite cognitive capacity.

This is a basic epistemological principle: we can only know things according to the mode of our being. A purely finite mode of knowing cannot recognize or interpret an infinite self-disclosure. Even if the ontological gap were bridged from the divine side, an unchanged human recipient would still filter the disclosure through limited categories, misunderstand it, or fail to perceive it at all.

Therefore, genuine revelation must include not only the communication of truth but also a mode of participation that enables the human subject to recognize and respond to that truth. Participation here simply means an epistemic relation initiated by the Revealer—a relational shift that allows the finite mind to receive what it otherwise could not. This does not mean losing one’s identity or “becoming divine,” but it does mean that the human mode of knowing is, in some way, elevated or expanded so that the subject can meaningfully engage with what is revealed.

If this participatory element is absent, revelation becomes epistemically inert. It may deliver claims, rules, or ideas, but it cannot deliver knowledge of the infinite source that reveals. The result is a purely external system—informative perhaps, but not cognitively adequate to its own object.

Without participation, the epistemic gap remains. With participation, the finite becomes capable of recognizing the infinite without collapsing into it.

A layman’s example of this would be:

If a world-class physicist explains quantum mechanics to someone with no scientific background, nothing meaningful happens unless the listener’s understanding grows. Information alone is not enough—there must be a change in the knower.

Likewise, if God were to reveal Himself, the revelation would only count as revelation if something in us were enabled to recognize and receive it. Otherwise, the encounter is lost in translation.

The core difference between Ontological Adequacy and Transformative Participation

• Ontological Adequacy: The bridge exists.

• Transformative Participation: You must be able to walk across it.

Without the first, revelation is impossible.

Without the second, revelation is unrecognizable.

What Comes Next

In this post, we established what must be true for humans to have any real knowledge of God. In the next post, we’ll apply these criteria to major worldviews—Islam, Judaism, Eastern religions, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christianity—to see which ones actually satisfy the transcendental conditions for knowing God. In a quest to show that Christianity alone does this.

These criteria are not abstract; they serve as a philosophical test for evaluating which worldviews can truly account for knowledge of God.

Stay tuned.