|
BookerG -> RE: Accounting for the laws of logic (7/2/2008 8:00:36 AM)
|
The three laws of logic
Law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.'
Law of noncontradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
Law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'
The idea that atheists can't account for logic is, in my opinion a very weak and even illogical argument for the existence of God. In a nutshell it says:
Logic is based on reasoning, not observation. But reasoning could be faulty. We may think logically, but that doesn't necessarily mean that logic is a fundamental property of the universe. Therefore logic can not be a certainty.
Christianity posits a foundation for logic, that it comes from God, who thinks logically and therefore created a logical universe. Therefore a Christian can be certain that logic is valid, atheists cannot. If an atheist tries to logically prove God does not exist, either he proves nothing, since his logic is arbitrary, or he has actually proved God exists by making use of the logic only God can establish as a fundamental property of nature.
It's basically the transcendental argument, that some things can only be seen, fully understood, or known for certain by someone who exists outside or beyond the system that is being observed.
Google this question and you'll even find arguments that claim only the Christian God can be the source of logic. They say, for example, that the God of Islam is so sovereign that he can make a square circle, a contradiction. But by doing so Allah undermines logic and therefore undermines our ability to know anything for certain, including God himself. Our God is truth; our God is logical, therefore our God is the only source of logic.
The weaknesses, starting with the last one. I don't believe our God is logical. He truly transcends logic, therefore he is not bound by it. Is the trinity logical? It violates the law of noncontradiction: God is One and Not One (Three) at the same time.
If A created B and fully controls B, and B causes C, then logically A is responsible for C, yet God is the Creator of all things and fully sovereign, yet neither the author of evil nor responsible for sin. The coexistence of free will and a sovereign God is not logical. Is Prayer logical, that an unchangeable God who knows everything and has a sovereign plan for the entire history of the world would do something unplanned because you asked him to (and if you say answering the prayer was in his plan all along, then the prayer changed nothing and prayer is pointless). It's not logical, but I still believe in the power of prayer. I also happen to believe the Lutheran understanding of Election, which Calvinists and Arminians would both call illogical, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Maybe the very reason why "My thoughts are not your thoughts," and "The foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom," is because God is not bound by logic. But if God is not bound by what man declares logical, then we can be no more certain of logic's unassailable status of truth than the Muslim or the atheist.
Other weaknesses of the argument. It might be correct that an atheist can not be absolutely certain that logic is a fundamental property of the universe, but so what? It would neither mean that logic is not a fundamental property nor that an atheist isn't entitled to use it. Atheists are quite comfortable living with uncertainty, with relativity. Logic has passed every test of practicality they can throw at it; that's good enough for them. Their god is science, which elevates human wisdom and proudly proclaims that our musings are all true and certain right up to the moment a new science comes along and comes up with a different truth and certainty.
And merely stating that logic must have a transcendental source to be reliable does not prove either that logic is reliable or that the source is God.
|
|
|
|