The Laws of Logic Imply God's Existence

[pancreasman]

Well I don't see how the law of non-contradiction couldn't be both universal and true. Objectively.

See here for the beginning of some interesting reading on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

I'm not suggesting LNC may not be universal or true. That was not the intent of my post. I was saying one can choose axioms and build a coherent system that does not correspond to reality.

[shunyadragon]

Well I don't see how the law of non-contradiction couldn't be both universal and true. Objectively.

At the point of the absolute true and universal nature of existence the law of non-contradiction is absolutely true and universal, regardless of whether God exists or not, but from the human perspection the law of non-contradiction is dependent on human assumptions and the human fallible view of what reality is.

[ST Mannew]

]I'm not sure if that's right. The 'laws' of logic are a set of rules. Like geometry. We can imagine geometries that do not correspond with reality, IOW they have no 'objective' existence and are not 'true' in that sense. I think it's possible to construct rules of logic that give an internally consistent structure but are simply not true[/COLOR].

Yes but, can you imagine a instant that you do not presuppose it is true that you exist?

[seer]

At the point of the absolute true and universal nature of existence the law of non-contradiction is absolutely true and universal, regardless of whether God exists or not, but from the human perspection the law of non-contradiction is dependent on human assumptions and the human fallible view of what reality is.

Well no doubt that our understanding if fallible but I would disagree - the law of non-contradiction depends on God. He came before nature and created nature, natural is rational because God is rational.

[seer]

See here for the beginning of some interesting reading on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

I'm not suggesting LNC may not be universal or true. That was not the intent of my post. I was saying one can choose axioms and build a coherent system that does not correspond to reality.

Yes, we can create syllogism that are logical but do not correspond to reality. But the, LoNC, I maintain, must be universal and objective. Or nothing, in the end, would make sense.

[shunyadragon]

Well no doubt that our understanding if fallible but I would disagree - the law of non-contradiction depends on God. He came before nature and created nature, natural is rational because God is rational.

This represents theist assumptions for it to be true, which is ok, but we have no evidence to justify this from the human perspective. What we have is human development and use of logic from the human perspective. I see no reason to believe nature is necessarily rational.

I believe the fallible human view remains . . .

At the point of the absolute true and universal nature of existence the law of non-contradiction is absolutely true and universal, regardless of whether God exists or not,

At present we can only deal with logic and reason from the human perspective.

[seer]

At the point of the absolute true and universal nature of existence the law of non-contradiction is absolutely true and universal, regardless of whether God exists or not,

That doesn't make sense. The universe is dependent on God, how do you know that the LoNC would be universal without God?

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't make sense. The universe is dependent on God, how do you know that the LoNC would be universal without God?

Doesn't make sense. We do not know LoNC would be universal with or without God. It is the belief of many theists that this is so. We have at present no evidence that the universe is dependent on God, as theists we believe it so, which I agree, but we do not know it is so.

[seer]

Doesn't make sense. We do not know LoNC would be universal with or without God. It is the belief of many theists that this is so. We have at present no evidence that the universe is dependent on God, as theists we believe it so, which I agree, but we do not know it is so.

You have no idea if the universe would follow these laws if it was not created by a rational God. How could you know that?

[shunyadragon]

You have no idea if the universe would follow these laws if it was not created by a rational God. How could you know that?

You have no idea if the universe would or would not follow these laws it were created by a rational God or formed naturally from matter and energy in the greater cosmos. How could you know whether either is true?

All we have is a very orderly predicable universe that apparently follows as set of laws and exists

[JimL]

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.

Whether "X is true or "X is not true, of itself, is not a thought or a proposition, its just the reality of existence. The truth isn't dependent upon a mind for it to be true, a mind is only necessary to understand or grasp it's truth.

[lao tzu]

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

We, the assembled Platonic idealists of mathematics, turn our backs upon you, and fart in your general direction.

[lao tzu]

Yes but, can you imagine a instant that you do not presuppose it is true that you exist?

You have some serious issues with imagining your death that are not shared by the skeptical community.

[lao tzu]

We can imagine geometries that do not correspond with reality, IOW they have no 'objective' existence and are not 'true' in that sense.

In fact, none of our geometries correspond to reality. Their utility arises from the relatively surprising fact that reality corresponds to them.

I smell the exact same argument as the good old morality one.

Much worse. The "argument", such as it is, is essentially incoherent. The claim is that the laws of logic are self-sufficient, while also dependent on the existence of his God. Rhetoric 101 fail.

[pancreasman]

I agree (with somebody) that the 'laws' of logic don't exist in the same way an apple exists. Laws are rigorous coherent thoughts about how the universe (seems to) work. The Law of gravity doesn't 'exist' either outside of human minds, BUT you still fall down. In fact, it's the falling down (enough times) that precedes our concept of a law of gravity. In other words, laws are shorthand mental concepts that describe apparent regularities in the behaviour of bits of the universe.

One could of course now say that the regularities imply something or other. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. It does seem like a weak place to establish an argument for theism from.