Archive for October, 2017

The Logical Outcome of Applying The Laws of Logic to God

Saturday, October 7th, 2017

Here’s the thing.

They say it so it must be true, right? I mean, a theist wouldn’t lie to us or, god forbid, be confused about anything?

Anyway, I‘ve been told repeatedly that the Laws of Logic (capitalized, just like that) are made by God, not the universe or man. On top of that they don’t rely on language, human mind or even the universe to exist. They only rely on God to exist.

One theist argued that without the Laws of Logic, language, speech, even the ability to form ideas simply could not happen. Think about it, without the Laws of Logic you could not think about the sentence you’re reading and ancient humans couldn’t think to themselves “Ugh, Barf hungry. Need food”

Here’s one tweet of many: https://twitter.com/In6days/status/915497264189231104

Donnelly1

I spent my time playing a semantic game hoping to get the theist to look at the practical evidence that language has to exist before actual laws can be formed, but the theist was too interested in believing the bases for the Laws of Logic were laws written by a lawgiver they have named God.  To a theist, the Laws of Logic have to be actual laws, much like human laws, not simply properties of the universe.

I guess it’s time to put the practical argument aside and approach it philosophically, like they do. They seem to think philosophy is better at providing evidence for the existence of something than the scrawny methods of science are. I think they’re enamored of the idea logic can provide proof while science only claims evidence – more certainty for them, and they need that.

So, let’s take a look at the argument.

Simplified it goes something like this: the existence of the Laws of Logic proves the existence of a law giver which proves the existence of their God.

To get there they present what can only be described as the Gish Gallop of Philosophy. You can read it here: https://carm.org/transcendental-argument

Unsurprisingly, this argument doesn’t specify a god, nor does it suggest the God referenced has anything to do with maintaining the Earth or its inhabitants.

I’m going to apply reasoning similar to that of the theist I’ve been arguing with to God.

According to the Law of Contradiction, it is not possible for the claims “God is subject to the Laws of Logic” and “God is not subject to the Laws of Logic” to be true simultaneously. The phrase “God is not subject to the Laws of Logic” is equivalent to “ Not (God is subject to the Laws of Logic)”.

So God is either subject to the Laws of Logic or God is not. (Law of Excluded Middle)

If God is subject to the Laws of Logic, then according to the theist I’ve been arguing with, God’s thought processes need the Laws of Logic to form the Laws of Logic. Without the Laws of Logic existing before the thoughts about the Laws of Logic those thoughts aren’t possible. This is because thought is illogical & random without the Laws of Logic & because something must exist in some manner for us to know to think about them. According to the theist.

He also specifies that speech can’t occur without the Laws of Logic. According to the Bible, God spoke the universe, the Earth & man into existence. If God is subject to the Laws of Logic they must predate his/her/its ability to think and to speak, therefore God could not have created the Laws of Logic. Without those laws God could never even have thought of them. Quite the hole God finds himself in.

If God could not have created the Laws of Logic, then God is not omnipotent nor omniscient, therefore God is not necessary. It means that God’s omniscience & omnipotence, and hence his godhood, is contingent on the Laws of Logic pre-existing.

If God is not subject to the Laws of Logic, then God could think up the Laws of Logic & speak them into existence. However, that also means God could exist & not exist at the same time because the Laws of Logic don’t apply.  If God can both exist & not exist at the same time then the philosophical argument that the existence of the Laws of Logic proves God’s existence is meaningless.

If God can think up the Laws of Logic without being subject to them, then they aren’t needed for either thought or speech. If the Laws of Logic aren’t necessary for thought then humans can indeed think them up & write them down. This also means the Laws of Logic are contingent on God so the Transcendental argument referenced above loses an important premise.

More responses.

Hint to theists – make sure to apply your arguments to God, not just make them about God.