The Laws of Logic Imply God's Existence

[siliconwafer]

The laws of logic are necessary truths and they exist necessarily. The laws of logic must be true. There is no possible world where they could be false. There is no possible world where the statements, "X is true" and "X is not true" could be true at the same in the same way. The laws of logic are propositions that are necessarily true. Propositions are real, but they are not physical objects. Moreover, propositions are thoughts so the laws of logic are thoughts. Since the laws of logic are true in every possible world, they exist in every possible world. If the laws of logic are true thoughts that necessarily exist in every possible world, then there must be a mind that necessarily exists. There cannot be a thought without a mind. There cannot be a mind unless there is a person. Hence, there must be a person who necessarily exists and this person is God. The laws of logic imply the existence of God. Not only do they imply God's existence; they presuppose God's existence.

One could make the objection that the laws of logic do not come from God; they come from human thinking. My response to this is that if the laws of logic are based on human thinking, then we have to realize that people are different and that the laws of logic may differ from person to person. They laws of logic would not be absolute; they would not have to apply to everyone.

Someone else may say that the laws of logic are just social conventions. If this were the case, then the laws of logic would not be absolute. If I am not a part of your culture or society, then my thinking does not have to conform to your culture's or society's laws of logic. Suppose there is someone who is not a part of your culture or society and he makes an illogical argument. You would have no legitimate basis for criticizing his argument for violating the laws of logic.

Someone might say that you don't need to give people arguments for God's existence because Romans 1 teaches that everyone knows God. It is true that everyone knows God, but not everyone will admit it. You can still show people that they believe in things that presuppose God's existence or make use of things that presuppose God's existence. Suppose you are talking to someone and he denies that God exists. He refuses to admit that God exists. Suppose he is using the laws of logic to make objections against Christianity. You can show him that the laws of logic presuppose God's existence. He denies God's existence, but he is using something that presupposes God's existence.

[shunyadragon]

The laws of logic are necessary truths and they exist necessarily. The laws of logic must be true. There is no possible world where they could be false. There is no possible world where the statements, "X is true" and "X is not true" could be true at the same in the same way. The laws of logic are propositions that are necessarily true. Propositions are real, but they are not physical objects. Moreover, propositions are thoughts so the laws of logic are thoughts. Since the laws of logic are true in every possible world, they exist in every possible world. If the laws of logic are true thoughts that necessarily exist in every possible world, then there must be a mind that necessarily exists. There cannot be a thought without a mind. There cannot be a mind unless there is a person. Hence, there must be a person who necessarily exists and this person is God. The laws of logic imply the existence of God. Not only do they imply God's existence; they presuppose God's existence.

One could make the objection that the laws of logic do not come from God; they come from human thinking. My response to this is that if the laws of logic are based on human thinking, then we have to realize that people are different and that the laws of logic may differ from person to person. They laws of logic would not be absolute; they would not have to apply to everyone.

Someone else may say that the laws of logic are just social conventions. If this were the case, then the laws of logic would not be absolute. If I am not a part of your culture or society, then my thinking does not have to conform to your culture's or society's laws of logic. Suppose there is someone who is not a part of your culture or society and he makes an illogical argument. You would have no legitimate basis for criticizing his argument for violating the laws of logic.

Someone might say that you don't need to give people arguments for God's existence because Romans 1 teaches that everyone knows God. It is true that everyone knows God, but not everyone will admit it. You can still show people that they believe in things that presuppose God's existence or make use of things that presuppose God's existence. Suppose you are talking to someone and he denies that God exists. He refuses to admit that God exists. Suppose he is using the laws of logic to make objections against Christianity. You can show him that the laws of logic presuppose God's existence. He denies God's existence, but he is using something that presupposes God's existence.

There is no evidence other than the testimony you cite from scripture that everyone knows God. To add, the concept of the Creator God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith is not common to all cultures, epecially Oriental beliefs.

As far as I know is that the Laws of Logic are human constructs that were codified by the Greeks into a system of formal logic. Humans have always been rational logical beings, but there is no evidence whatsoever that logic in the form apparent in human nature and refined and used since that developed by the Greeks, The logic, both formal and informal, we use today has changed and evolved since the Greek civilization.

Please provide evidence that the system of logic we know today existed prior to human existence.

[pancreasman]

The laws of logic are necessary truths and they exist necessarily. The laws of logic must be true. There is no possible world where they could be false. There is no possible world where the statements, "X is true" and "X is not true" could be true at the same in the same way. The laws of logic are propositions that are necessarily true. Propositions are real, but they are not physical objects. Moreover, propositions are thoughts so the laws of logic are thoughts. Since the laws of logic are true in every possible world, they exist in every possible world. If the laws of logic are true thoughts that necessarily exist in every possible world, then there must be a mind that necessarily exists. There cannot be a thought without a mind. There cannot be a mind unless there is a person. Hence, there must be a person who necessarily exists and this person is God. The laws of logic imply the existence of God. Not only do they imply God's existence; they presuppose God's existence.

One could make the objection that the laws of logic do not come from God; they come from human thinking. My response to this is that if the laws of logic are based on human thinking, then we have to realize that people are different and that the laws of logic may differ from person to person. They laws of logic would not be absolute; they would not have to apply to everyone.

Someone else may say that the laws of logic are just social conventions. If this were the case, then the laws of logic would not be absolute. If I am not a part of your culture or society, then my thinking does not have to conform to your culture's or society's laws of logic. Suppose there is someone who is not a part of your culture or society and he makes an illogical argument. You would have no legitimate basis for criticizing his argument for violating the laws of logic.

Someone might say that you don't need to give people arguments for God's existence because Romans 1 teaches that everyone knows God. It is true that everyone knows God, but not everyone will admit it. You can still show people that they believe in things that presuppose God's existence or make use of things that presuppose God's existence. Suppose you are talking to someone and he denies that God exists. He refuses to admit that God exists. Suppose he is using the laws of logic to make objections against Christianity. You can show him that the laws of logic presuppose God's existence. He denies God's existence, but he is using something that presupposes God's existence.

Interesting idea. I dispute that the 'laws' of logic must presuppose that God exists. You seem to be elevating them to some platonic existence of their own independent of minds. I don't see that as the case at all. It's rather like the argument that the 'laws' of science must presuppose God as law giver. Laws of both science and logic seem to me to shorthand summaries of how we have observed the universe to work. They also are deeply interdependent with language. They are not arbitrary (because they are based on reality as we observe it) but they are a human creation (since we use our language to express these observations.)

[ENeGMA]

The laws of logic are necessary truths and they exist necessarily.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the laws of logic "exist".

Laws of logic are certain kinds of relations between things, usually propositions. You can think of a law of logic like the excluded middle as something like addition -- it's a relation which holds between propositions as addition is a relation which holds between numbers.

But it doesn't really make sense to say that the law of excluded middle "exists" anymore than it does to say that addition "exists".

Furthermore, there isn't just one set of the "laws of logic".

See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

If we use a dialetheistic logic then non-contradiction doesn't hold in all cases. The choice between classical logic and dialetheistic logic seems like a choice that we can make. I don't see any particular reason to believe that one kind of logic is "true" (whatever that means here) and the other not.

The laws of logic must be true. There is no possible world where they could be false. There is no possible world where the statements, "X is true" and "X is not true" could be true at the same in the same way.

The possibility of dialetheistic logics (not to mention other non-classical logics) throws this claim into some doubt.

The laws of logic are propositions that are necessarily true.

The laws of logic aren't propositions, but rather hold among propositions.

So the law of excluded middle, for example, isn't itself a proposition, but rather says that for any proposition P, either P or its negation not-P must be true.

Propositions are the objects that the laws of logic take, just like numbers are the objects addition takes.

Propositions are real,

Maybe. It's at the very least not obvious that propositions exist,

but they are not physical objects.

Or that they must be non-physical objects.

Lots of people would dispute both claims, and there's no decisive argument in favor of this view.

Moreover, propositions are thoughts so the laws of logic are thoughts. Since the laws of logic are true in every possible world, they exist in every possible world. If the laws of logic are true thoughts that necessarily exist in every possible world, then there must be a mind that necessarily exists.

I don't agree that propositions are "thoughts" in this sense. Propositions, if they exist, are the objects of thoughts. So you can think that it's raining. "That it's raining" is the proposition, the object of your thought. It's not itself the thought.

There cannot be a thought without a mind.

But there could be propositions without minds.

There cannot be a mind unless there is a person. Hence, there must be a person who necessarily exists and this person is God. The laws of logic imply the existence of God. Not only do they imply God's existence; they presuppose God's existence.

One could make the objection that the laws of logic do not come from God; they come from human thinking.

Some people certainly say that.

My response to this is that if the laws of logic are based on human thinking, then we have to realize that people are different and that the laws of logic may differ from person to person. They laws of logic would not be absolute; they would not have to apply to everyone.

Lots of logicians and mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics think precisely this.

Someone else may say that the laws of logic are just social conventions. If this were the case, then the laws of logic would not be absolute. If I am not a part of your culture or society, then my thinking does not have to conform to your culture's or society's laws of logic. Suppose there is someone who is not a part of your culture or society and he makes an illogical argument. You would have no legitimate basis for criticizing his argument for violating the laws of logic.

That certainly could be a consequence of a view on which the laws of logic vary.

Someone might say that you don't need to give people arguments for God's existence because Romans 1 teaches that everyone knows God. It is true that everyone knows God, but not everyone will admit it. You can still show people that they believe in things that presuppose God's existence or make use of things that presuppose God's existence. Suppose you are talking to someone and he denies that God exists. He refuses to admit that God exists. Suppose he is using the laws of logic to make objections against Christianity. You can show him that the laws of logic presuppose God's existence. He denies God's existence, but he is using something that presupposes God's existence.

I don't think that this is a very convincing argument. More generally, I don't think this a very convincing style of argument to use as evidence for the existence of God.

[seer]

Interesting idea. I dispute that the 'laws' of logic must presuppose that God exists. You seem to be elevating them to some platonic existence of their own independent of minds.

I think he is saying that the laws of logic exist eternally in the mind of God. Logically is how God thinks and acts and has built these laws into the universe.

[pancreasman]

I think he is saying that the laws of logic exist eternally in the mind of God. Logically is how God thinks and acts and has built these laws into the universe.

We call that assuming the conclusion.

[seer]

We call that assuming the conclusion.

No we call that rightly understanding the nature of God and Scripture. Jesus is the Logos - "logic, reason."

[pancreasman]

No we call that rightly understanding the nature of God and Scripture. Jesus is the Logos - "logic, reason."

DUH! He's making an argument for existence of God. He can't (and he isn't) assuming that from the start. I honestly worry about your reading comprehension.

[siliconwafer]

There is no evidence other than the testimony you cite from scripture that everyone knows God. To add, the concept of the Creator God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith is not common to all cultures, epecially Oriental beliefs.

As far as I know is that the Laws of Logic are human constructs that were codified by the Greeks into a system of formal logic. Humans have always been rational logical beings, but there is no evidence whatsoever that logic in the form apparent in human nature and refined and used since that developed by the Greeks, The logic, both formal and informal, we use today has changed and evolved since the Greek civilization.

Please provide evidence that the system of logic we know today existed prior to human existence.

Before human beings existed, these two statements could not have been true at the same time and in the same way: "1 + 1 = 2" and "1 + 1 does not equal 2" Hence, the law of non-contradiction must have been in existence.

[siliconwafer]

Interesting idea. I dispute that the 'laws' of logic must presuppose that God exists. You seem to be elevating them to some platonic existence of their own independent of minds. I don't see that as the case at all. It's rather like the argument that the 'laws' of science must presuppose God as law giver. Laws of both science and logic seem to me to shorthand summaries of how we have observed the universe to work. They also are deeply interdependent with language. They are not arbitrary (because they are based on reality as we observe it) but they are a human creation (since we use our language to express these observations.)

Did the following statements contradict each other before human beings came into existence?

1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 does not equal 2.

If they contradicted each other before human beings came into existence , then the law of non-contradiction must have been in existence before human beings existed. Hence, the law of non-contradiction was in existence before humans came into existence.

[seer]

DUH! He's making an argument for existence of God. He can't (and he isn't) assuming that from the start. I honestly worry about your reading comprehension.

Hey you are the one who suggested that SW was referring to a platonic existence for said laws - independent of minds. I'm saying that he probably believes that the laws of logic exist in the mind of God - eternally so. Irrespective of his argument for the existence of God... Sheesh!

[pancreasman]

Did the following statements contradict each other before human beings came into existence?

1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 does not equal 2.

If they contradicted each other before human beings came into existence , then the law of non-contradiction must have been in existence before human beings existed. Hence, the law of non-contradiction was in existence before humans came into existence.

Those statements, since they are statements of language, could not have been made before humans came into existence.

[shunyadragon]

No we call that rightly understanding the nature of God and Scripture. Jesus is the Logos - "logic, reason."

pancreasman was correct as you affirmed here. you are assuming the conclusion.

[shunyadragon]

Did the following statements contradict each other before human beings came into existence?

1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 does not equal 2.

If they contradicted each other before human beings came into existence , then the law of non-contradiction must have been in existence before human beings existed. Hence, the law of non-contradiction was in existence before humans came into existence.

No, the law of non-contradiction remains a human construct with assumptions as to what is non-contradicting. This too simplistic to be real, because the language and the assumption of the logic of math are developed as tools of human intellect, and there is no evidence that it existed prior to human reasoning. The problems of logic and the law of non-contradiction are far more complicated than 1+1=2.

[seer]

pancreasman was correct as you affirmed here. you are assuming the conclusion.

Nonsense, I was countering P's point suggesting that SW was referring to a platonic existence for the laws of logic. Nothing more.