There are some things I don't understand about the transcendental argument for God's existence. Basically, the logical form is:  q  Necessarily, if not p, then not q.  Therefore, p. And it tries to show that God's existence is the precondition for the intelligibility of experience. (Is it belief in God that is the precondition for the intelligibility of experience or is the argument claiming that God is the ontological ground for the intelligibility of experience or both?) , as I understand it, can be any fact, and the premise is granted. But  says that you can't make sense out of  without God. How far can we go with this? Greg Bahnsen argues that we should let our presupposition be the whole Christian worldview and establish it with the transcendental argument. The trouble is that nonbelievers are going to question the soundness of . Could someone prove that experience is unintelligible whenever Christian theism is not presupposed? That is, show that no form of nonChristian belief can give us the preconditions for the intelligibility of experience. Thanks.