Transcendent principles (new version of TAG)
For reasons that will become clear by the time I get to the end of this, I am not going to present my argument in a formalized way. Let's get started:
(1) Human reasoning occurs within the context of a formal system. It is formal systems which set the rules and guidelines for our discourse.
(2) All formal systems contain axioms, or principles which are considered justified in themselves and thus need not be proven within that system.
(3) Axioms either constitute the basis for the formulation of a formal system or they are themselves derived from a formal system.
(4) An infinite regression of formal systems being derived from axioms is impossible, since, if that was true, then there could be no justification within any formal system because there would ultimately be no undergirding principles.
(5) An infinite regression of axioms being derived for formal systems is impossible since axioms ultimately supersede formal systems. It is conceivable that axioms may exist without a formal system, but formal systems cannot exist without axioms.
(6) There must therefore be axioms which are themselves not derived from any other formal system. They just simply are. Herein, I'll refer to such axioms as "transcendent principles".
(7) Transcendent principles cannot be invented. Formulating a principle requires rules of inference, which can only occur within formal systems. Yet it has been established that transcendent principles cannot be derived from formal systems.
( Transcendent principles cannot be physical attributes of the human brain because such physical facts are contingent facts about a human subject and it would follow that any subject with a physicality even slightly different would have different principles, thus precluding them being transcendent.
(9) Transcendent principles cannot be inductive principles extrapolated from empirical observation. Observing something in nature and then codifying it into a scientific law requires a preexisting formal system, which, as I've established earlier, requires transcendent principles to already be in place or else there would just be an infinite regress of axioms and/or systems, which is impossible. Furthermore, universality can never be derived from induction and we would then have no basis for applying transcendent principles because we could not possibly observe the entire universe.
(10) Transcendent principles are conceptual by nature, thus they are ontologically dependent on a mind.
(11) Transcendent principles do not change. They are always so and cannot be otherwise.
(12) Thus, transcendent principles necessitate a thinking being which is eternal, intelligent, and infallible. That being we can call "God"