Evidence For God From Logic

[mort]

The Transcendental Argument

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Evidence_for_God_from_Logic

The Necessity of Logic
All of us get up every day and live our lives without giving much
thought to the physical and non-physical laws of the universe that
have to be in place in order for us to exist and live in our world. We
take for granted the law of gravity, for example; it doesn’t really
matter to us how this law exists or what forces lie behind the law. We
simply know that we live in a world where gravity is a reality. In a
similar way, there are many conceptual truths that exist in our
universe that we take for granted! These conceptual truths also order
and establish our world and limit our exploration and experience of
all that we see and understand. One area of conceptual truth is simply
the body of concepts that we call the Laws of Logic.

All rational discussion, for example, requires the pre-existence of
logical absolutes. You would have a hard time making sense of any
conversation if there weren’t Laws of Logic to guide the conversation
and provide rational boundaries. Here are three of the most important
Laws of Logic that you and I use every day to engage each other
rationally:


The Law of Identity
Something is what it is. ‘A’ is ‘A’. Things that exist have
specific properties that identify them

The Law of Non-Contradiction
‘A’ cannot be both ‘A’ and ‘Non-A’ at the same time, in the same
way and in the same sense

The Law of Excluded Middle
A statement is either true or false. There is no middle position.
For example, the claim that "A statement is either true or false" is
either true or false!


These are simple laws; we use them all the time. These logical ‘rules’
are necessary in order for us to examine truth statements and point
out when someone is reasoning illogically. These are important laws
and they are known as the First, Second and Third Laws of Logic. We
use the Laws of Logic all the time; you couldn’t even begin to read
and reason through this website if you didn’t use these laws. In fact,
you’ve never had an intelligent, rational conversation in your entire
life without using these laws. These laws TRANSCEND us as humans (they
apply to all of us in the same way, regardless of location, culture or
time in history). So the question we have to ask ourselves is simple:
“Where do the transcendent laws of logic come from?”

An Evidence for the Existence of God?
Most of the atheists that I know like to think that they are actually
far more rational than Christians. But they are basing this
‘rationality’ on their command of the Laws of Logic. Can they even
account for these transcendent laws without the existence of a
transcendent God? Let’s see. Let’s begin by presenting the
Transcendental Argument in its complete form and then we’ll examine
some atheistic responses to the argument:


(1) The Absolute Laws of Logic Exist
We cannot deny that the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any
‘reasonable’ or ‘logical’ argument that these laws don’t exist,
requires their existence in the first place


The Absolute Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws
These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot
be seen under a microscope or weighed in a scale. They are conceptual
laws that guide logical thought processes

The Absolute Laws of Logic Are Transcendent
And these laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go
forward a million years or backward a million years, the laws of logic
still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location!

The Absolute Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind
The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws dictates
that they pre-exist mankind. Even before men were ever able to
understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not be “Non-A”! The
law was discovered by humans, not created by humans.


(2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver
Conceptual laws require lawgivers. We know this from our common
experience in the world in which we live. The laws that govern our
society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of
‘minds’. But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern
thought processes and rationality, and for this reason, they require
the existence of a mind.


(3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind
Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Absolute, Conceptual
Laws of Logic is God
The only lawgiver that can account for non-physical, transcendent
laws that pre-exist mankind must also be a non-physical, transcendent
and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we commonly think of
when we think of a creator God.


The Christian Worldview has the ability to ACCOUNT for the existence
of the transcendent Laws of Logic. Christianity proposes that God
exists and that he is the absolute, transcendent ‘standard’ of truth.
The transcendent Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of the nature
of this absolute God. Now it’s important to understand that
Christianity does NOT propose that God CREATED these laws. They are
simply a reflection of God’s thinking, and for this reason, they are
as eternal as God Himself. You and I, as humans, have the ability to
DISCOVER these laws because we have been created in the image of God,
but we don’t create or invent the laws. These laws are evidence that a
transcendent God exists because there is no other satisfactory way to
account for the existence of transcendent laws without the existence
of a transcendent law maker. But this last statement is hotly debated
by atheists. Many would argue that the Laws of Logic can be accounted
for in some other way that does not necessitate the existence of God.


Is There Some Other Explanation?
When the Transcendental Argument is offered to those who doubt the
existence of God, a number of objections are usually raised in an
effort to find some other explanation for the Laws of Logic. Let’s
examine some of the objections to see if any of them might truly be a
viable alternative to the existence of God.


Objection:
Aren’t the “Laws of Logic” simply the ‘brute’ characteristics of
existence? Both material and immaterial things must abide by
boundaries of existence in order to exist in the first place. The
“Laws of Logic” are simply among the boundaries and characteristics of
existence. They are not transcendent laws from a transcendent mind;
they are just a few of the natural boundaries of existence.


Both the theist and the atheist would agree that the Laws of
Logic are brute ‘somethings’. The atheist would claim that Logic is a
brute, innate FACT of existence, while the theist would argue that
Logic is a brute, innate reflection of the nature and thinking of God.
In either case, these laws would have to be ETERNAL, UNCAUSED and
NECESSARY by nature, right? Nothing can exist without the simultaneous
existence of these laws. But let’s now look at how both sides ACCOUNT
for their existence:


The Atheist
The brute Laws of Logic simply exist. They are eternal and
uncaused. Nothing can exist without them. That’s just the way it is.


The Theist
If there is any God at all, He would, by definition, be
eternal, uncaused, omniscient and omnipotent; He would be the all-
knowing and all-powerful God that is the necessary, uncaused first
cause of all matter, space and time. He would have attributes like
thoughts, character, essence and nature, and if He is truly as
powerful and all-knowing as we say He is, these attributes would be
‘perfect’ (an all-powerful and all-knowing God has the power to
eliminate imperfection!) Logic then is simply an attribute of God’s
perfect existence; it is innate and intrinsic to God’s own perfect
thought processes (God’s thoughts would, by necessity, be consistent
within Himself). God does not ‘create’ these Laws of Logic, they are
an innate and immutable aspect of His nature. As God is necessary for
all else to exist, so are the Laws of Logic. They are merely a
reflection of God’s nature, and they permeate all of His creation.


Now look at these two responses for a minute. Both the atheist
and the theist agree that ‘something’ is eternal, uncaused and
necessary. But when the atheist says that the Laws of Logic ‘simply
exist’, he is really ‘begging the question’; he’s not providing an
explanation for their eternal, uncaused and necessary existence (just
saying they exist does not provide us with an accounting of their
existence). In addition, the atheist fails to explain how these laws
can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causing all
other contingent realities. The theist, on the other hand, can account
for the existence of the Laws of Logic by pointing to the existence of
an omniscient and omnipotent ‘uncaused first cause’ that possesses
perfect rationality (by virtue of His limitless power) and can also
act as the first cause of all other contingent creations.


Objection:
Aren’t the “Laws of Logic” simply the result of observations we
make of the world in which we live? We discovered the laws of physics
from our observations of the natural world; can’t we discover the Laws
of Logic in a similar way?


Remember that the Laws of Logic are conceptual. They only
exist in the mind. They don’t describe physical behaviors or actions
of matter, but instead describe ‘truth’. The Laws of Logic are
statements that deal with conceptual patterns and processes of
thought. Now let’s think about the analogy to physics for a minute.
Newton’s three Laws of Motion (as an example) may be conceptual as
statements, but they describe actual physical behaviors that we can
observe. This is an important difference relative to the Laws of
Logic. Logical absolutes (especially those that have to do with
mathematics) cannot be observed and do not describe the behavior or
actions of material things because the Laws of Logic exist completely
in the mind.


Now let’s take a look at an example that an atheist might
present as proof that we learn the Laws of Logic from our observations
of the natural world. Someone might argue that our careful
observations of a sea shell, for example, can reveal to us a Law of
Logic. Observing that the shell does nothing but exist as a shell (it
is not a fish - nor does it ever become a fish) we might then posit
and formulate the Law of Identity or the Law of Non-Contradiction.
From this simple example, the atheist will claim that Laws of Logic
can be discovered from observations of matter.


But let’s think carefully about this. Yes, it is correct to
say that the shell does not change. And yes, it is correct to say that
we can observe this physical reality. But we then do something very
interesting; we assign a logical absolute to the observation we just
made. We assign something that is conceptual (and requires a mind) to
our observation of matter. But the mere fact that we made an
observation and then assigned a logical absolute to that observation
does not then ACCOUNT for the existence of all logical absolutes in
the first place. The fact that our observations SUPPORT the PRE-
existence of the logical absolute does not mean that our observation
ESTABLISHES the Law of Logic. Can you see the difference? We don’t
form the Law of Logic from the observation, we instead confirm the pre-
existing logical truth with our observation.


Objection:
Aren’t the Laws of Logic simply human conventions?


When people make this kind of objection, they are typically
referring to a ‘convention’ as a ‘principle that everyone has agreed
on’. But if Laws of Logic are simply ideas about truth that people
have agreed on, two things are required before we could ever have a
single Law of Logic: people, and agreement! Now think about that; are
we really saying that the Law of Identity (for example) did not exist
before people were here to think it up? Are we really saying that
prior to the existence of people “A” could be “Non-A”? And we all
recognize that people disagree on what is true and untrue. We disagree
with each other and our positions often contradict each other. How
then, can the Laws of Logic be ‘transcendent’ unless they exist for
all of us, whether we agree with them or not? If the Laws of Logic are
merely agreed upon conventions, they cannot be absolute because they
would, in essence, be subject to a “vote”; the laws could be changed
if enough people agreed!


Objection:
If God created the Laws of Logic, then they are dependant on God.
They are not ‘necessary’ truths but ‘contingent’ truths, and this
means that they are not foundational to the universe. And if God
‘created’ the Laws of Logic, wouldn’t this mean that He could change
them whenever He wanted? Couldn’t God then arrange things so that “A”
is also “Non-A”? After all, He created the Laws, so He should be able
to change them! But the idea that “A” could also be “Non-A” is crazy
and leads us to conclude, therefore, that Logic is not actually
dependent on God at all.


Once again, we need to remember that, as Christians, we are
not claiming that God created the Laws of Logic. It is not our
position that He created something with particular properties, so He
could therefore change these properties. Instead, we believe that the
Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of the thoughts of God, and as
such, they reveal His logical, perfect nature. We understand that God
is limited by His own nature; He is not self contradictory. Just as
there is no such thing as a ‘square’ circle (because this violates the
nature of what a circle is all about), God cannot exist outside His
nature, which includes the nature of His perfect thoughts. Logic is
necessary simply because God is the necessary Being that He is. The
Laws of Logic are absolute, unchangeable, internally consistent and
transcendent simply because God Himself is absolute, unchangeable,
internally consistent and transcendent.


Objection:
Aren’t there different kinds of Logic? If this is true, there are
a variety of differing views and laws, so the idea of transcendence is
not really true, and there is no need, therefore, for a transcendent
source of these Laws.


While it is true that there are different categories of Logic
that apply to different aspects of propositional truth, mathematics
and reasoning, the basic underlying principles of Logic remain intact.
In addition, it’s true that many ‘laws of thought’ have been proposed
over time by great thinkers (i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Leibniz,
Schopenhauer, Boole, Welton, and even Russell), but these laws merely
reflect, in one way or another, the same universal and absolute
logical truths that are pre-existent. In essence, we continue to find
ourselves restating and reformulating the same Laws of Logic over and
over again. When an atheist says that “there are different kinds of
logic” he is failing to see that the underlying logical absolutes
remain constant and the existence of these universal absolutes has not
been explained by atheism.


So, Are We Being Consistent?
Maybe by now your head is starting to spin as we think through the
nature of transcendent principles, trying to account for them and
trying to decide why any of this should matter to us in the first
place! But these are important issues because they help us to form our
foundational view of the world. In the end, each of us wants to live
in a way that is consistent with our own worldview, so we need to
begin by understanding what we believe and why we believe it! Only
then we can ask ourselves the important question: “Are we living and
behaving in a way that is consistent with what we say we believe?”


Let me give you an example. Let’s say that you and I are sitting on
the beach. We hear the sound of an airplane overhead, but we ignore
it. Later, we look up and see cloudy formations in the sky, forming
the words, “DIAL *88 TO WIN $1,000,000”. I say to you, “Wow, look at
how well that sky-writer wrote that sentence!” You look at me with a
disgusted look on your face and say, “What makes you believe that a
sky-writer was involved at all? Those may simply be clouds that just
happened to form the shapes of what appear to be letters!” I respond,
“Are you kidding? Didn’t you hear that airplane earlier?” You’re
unconvinced, “You and I never actually SAW the sky-writer as he was
writing the letters,” you say, “So you really don’t know if those are
written words or just natural clouds! In fact, I think those are
simply clouds.” I think you’re acting irrationally, but I do have to
admit that we didn’t actually SEE the sky-writer write the words in
the sky. I do, however, believe that this is the most reasonable and
logical conclusion from the evidence and my ‘sky-writer theory’ seems
far more likely from the standpoint of probability and far less
subjective than your ‘accidental cloud’ theory, but I remain silent at
this point. Minutes later, I watch you as you pull out your cell phone
and dial *88. “What are you doing?” I ask. You respond, “Well, I can
really use the $1,000,000!” This is ridiculous. I say, “Just moments
ago you told me that those words were just accidental cloud formations
and now you’re dialing *88 as if the words were written by a sky-
writer!”


Do you see the problem here? In this simple illustration, it is clear
that one of us is acting in a way that is inconsistent with our own
view of how those words came to be. You are claiming that they are
accidental and have no meaning, yet dialing the cell phone as if they
DID have meaning. See the inconsistency?


In a similar way, if the transcendental Laws of Logic exist because a
transcendental God exists, we cannot then use these laws to argue
‘rationally’ that there is no God in the first place. To do so is just
like arguing that the words in the sky are accidental clouds, and then
acting upon what these words are saying as if they were placed there
by a sky-writer. When atheists use their reasoning ability to examine
the world and draw conclusions, they are first assuming and
presupposing that there is a rational basis to the universe. They are
presupposing that the Laws of Logic exist and are transcendent. But
atheism as a world view cannot account for the transcendent Laws of
Logic that it employs to draw conclusions and make arguments in the
first place. In other words, atheists must dip their feet in the
rational, logical constructs and principles of theism in order to
attempt to rationally deny theism! Do you see the inconsistency here?
Rationality and logic exist and can only be accounted for in a
theistic worldview. When atheists use logic to try to disprove God's
existence, they are assuming absolute Laws of Logic; they are
borrowing from the Christian worldview.


Another Important Evidence
The transcendent Laws of Logic can best be accounted for in a theistic
worldview, and you and I can be consistent in our behavior if we
recognize that the nature of logic dictates the existence of God. The
transcendental evidence for the existence of God is a powerful
addition to the circumstantial cumulative case for God’s existence,
and the Laws of Logic make it possible for us to reason about God’s
existence in the first place.