Transcendence Vs. Naturalism
Although they are not officially antonyms, transcendence and Naturalism are directly opposing counter propositions, philosophically. Naturalism believes that transcendence does not exist.
There are many existing entities that appear to be transcendent, and because of that have received major attention from the Atheist community. Each “transcendent” entity is fitted out with a story of how it “could have” evolved. No evolution story currently is required to have any empirical or forensic evidence in order to be accepted by the evolutionists. It is enough to claim “coherence”, which is New Atheist speak for “the sense of the scientific community”, which should be restated as, “the sense of the evolution community”.
Much of the outside scientific community does not believe in evolutionary data, which is non-rigorous in terms that would be acceptable to say, physicists, chemists, or any engineering discipline.
Transcendence, as we have seen starting with the First Principles, cannot be obliterated by mere definitions of Naturalism. Transcendence is seen to exist at the resolution of most if not all of the issues attacked by Atheists. This is because Atheism cannot exist if transcendence is not rationalized out of the realm of necessity. Again, the First Principles show conclusively that transcendence cannot be declared nonextant. The transcendent nature of the First Principles is essential not only to establishing a basis for rational thought, but also to halting the infinite regress of verifiability requirements that would exist without it.
Thus, it is acceptable to assert that:
If rationality exists, then transcendence necessarily exists.
Conversely, as the Great Atheist Friedrich Nietzsche demanded,
If
transcendence does not exist, then rationality cannot exist.
This is the principle upon which Nietzsche founded his Irrationalism.
Information on the First
Principles is here.