|
|
|
Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria
|
MenuBlog
Debates Most Recent Files
* Justification And The Mass -- 10 Mr. Pike's Cross-Examination Rebuttal |
Category: Philosophy:Logic Logic Proves The Existence of GodThe title of this essay makes a bold claim. Logic proves the existence of God. It sounds a bit egotistical to make such a claim. People have struggled for years with this issue. Centuries and millennium of philosophers have debated the point back and forth. And yet, ultimately, it is a simple matter to prove. This doesn't mean that all will accept what is rationally proven. We see evidence of people denying the rational constantly. In fact, I am well aware that atheists will accuse me of the same thing here. But once again, the point cannot be denied. Logic demands the existence of God. With the introduction to this issue complete, let us begin with the proof. Already, however, we run into a problem. What is it that constitutes "proof"? What sort of evidence would there be that would prove beyond the shadow of a doubt anything, let alone the existence of God? It is to this question that we must now turn for the following reasons. First, without a working definition of what constitutes proof, nothing can be proven. Secondly, what we accept as proof determines what we view reality to be. However, we must note that what we view as reality does not in any way, shape, or manner actually change what reality actually is or is not. This is important to keep in mind as we continue. When an atheist denies the existence of God, he will often use logic as his reason. This makes it seem strange that I would state that logic so clearly demonstrates the existence of God, but the fact of the matter is that the atheist has no reason to use logic at all, let alone to deny the existence of God. Let us turn our attention to logic for the moment. The first rule of logic is that there can be no contradictions. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. That is, I cannot be both a son and a father at the same time and in the same relationship. To be sure, I can be both-I have a father, therefore I am a son. If I had a child, I would by definition be a father. Since I would be both at the same time, I could be both a father and a son at the same time. Indeed, any male with children satisfies this definition, for he is both a son and a father. But it is in a different relationship. I cannot be the father to my father. I cannot be the son of my son. I cannot be both father and son to the same person, because that is a logical contradiction. The question comes about however. How do we know this to be true? It is simple enough to state it and it's logical sounding to our mind, but how do we know this to be true? Do we have proof that logical contradictions cannot be valid? Keep this in mind as we continue. The second most important law in logic is the law of the invalidity of Circular Reasoning. Circular reasoning in its simplest form states that something is true because something is true. In other words, if I said "Apples are red because apples are red" I would be using circular reasoning to prove my point. Or, as the atheist will often point out, saying, "God exists because God exists" is circular reasoning. It presupposes the thing to be proven is already true. Why is this invalid in logic? Because of the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Circular Reasoning was valid, you could prove something that is contradictory. "An apple is red because it is red" and "An apple is not red because an apple is not red." If Circular Reasoning were valid, both these statements would be as well, and you would have the contradiction that an apple is both red and not red at the same time and in the same relationship. Thus, an error and a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Any statement "proved" by Circular Reasoning can also be "disproved" by the antithesis. Now this becomes a problem when we apply this law back to logic itself. How do we know the Law of Non-Contradiction is valid? Because it is valid. But that, my friends, is circular reasoning. It proves nothing at all. In order for this to be demonstrated, we must have something that proves the Law of Non-Contradiction to be valid. The first thing that an atheist might say is, "We have never observed a contradiction to be valid; therefore, it cannot be valid." But this presumes too much. We have limited observations. We occupy a tiny little dot in the vast expanse of the universe, and have access to only what we can empirically test and see with our senses. In short, we haven't even fully examined our own bedroom or living room, let alone the entire world, let alone the entire universe to make the assertion that since we have never observed a contradiction to be valid it cannot possibly be valid. But everyone knows that contradictions are invalid. How do we know this? We know this mentally. We know this because we think logically, and the first rule of logic is that there can be no contradictions! But this is merely circular reasoning once again! We are left still hunting for the answer. But what we must understand is that in order to ask the question, we are already presuming that logic is valid. The fundamental purpose of the question is to find the answer. And the answer can only be one thing, and not its contradiction. Simply by the fact that we are asking the question of how to prove logic, we have presupposed that logic must exist in order to answer the question. Does this magically make logic appear out of nothing? Not at all, for it is equally possible that reality is outside of logic and we just think that it is inside of logic and so it appears to be so for us. Presupposing something to be true does not make it so. We know of people who are convinced of something that is in error. This does not change reality. I can become convinced that sugar in the gas tank of my car will improve gas mileage, but none of that will change the reality of needing pure gas for my car. I can become convinced that I can fly, but I will still die if I jump off the Empire State Building. Things that are do not change just because of what we believe. But even that statement cannot be proven. It is only stated as such because that is all that we have ever known. We have no reason to believe differently, but that doesn't change what reality could or could not be. In fact, ultimately, the entire world could really be part of The Matrix and we would never know the difference because we would be satisfied with the logical answers that we see. They are logical because we are convinced that they are logical, not because they must be logical. What does this mean? It means that if we apply logic to itself, logic crumbles and disappears. You see, logic cannot exist in and of itself. We are left with a mind-staggering problem. You cannot prove logic to be valid, and therefore anything proven by logic is not valid. But how can you prove something without using logic? It is quite a conundrum because of the way we have set things up in our mind. Because of the way we know things to be. But what does this have to do with the existence of God? In a word: everything. Let me explain. When we think of the Law of Non-Contradiction, it is simply something that makes sense to us. We accept it as true because we instinctively know it to be true. Why is this so? What is it that drives humanity to seek the answer to any question, an answer that depends on logic? Why is it that we all instantly develop logical thoughts? Sure, we don't always think logically, but we all think in words and sentences, and those are formed by logical thought. Look at these very words I am writing. Words have meaning. If I said "blither ahlo mungu aheliea" I would be communicating nothing. But if I said, "The house is on fire! Call 911!" the meaning is clear. We know that the house, or residence, is on fire, or burning. "Call 911" is a prompt to reach emergency services here in the USA. Words have meaning and the word "house" cannot be both a house and a non-house at the same time and in the same relationship. If it were so, we could have no meaningful conversations. There would be no communication at all. Anything could mean anything, and therefore everything would mean nothing. But since words have meaning, we use logic to speak. Does this prove that logic is valid? Logic is used for everything. We have to presume it exists in order to do anything. Does this make it valid? How did we first develop ideas of what logic was? This is a question that naturalistic people cannot answer. Supposing that we evolved from simple cells and eventually our intellect started to get better and better and we came along this road of evolutionary thought, how did logic first start? Consider the evolution of speech. One day, caveman Zorg trips over a rock. He points at the stone and says, "Rock." From that point on, the word "rock" is in the caveman vocabulary. And so on and so forth until we develop this complex languages like English, Spanish, and German. What is the problem with this? The only way for speech to work is, once again, if the Law of Non-Contradiction exists. This means that in order for us to have any meaningful statement dividing those that are rocks and those that are not, we have to first know how to differentiate between the two ideas. Something exists as a rock, and something exists as a non-rock. We have to know this already before we have language. This means that logic precedes language. Logic comes before language and logic leads to language. Without logic already existing, language could not exist. So we know that primitive man would have had to be logical before he could speak. He had to already differentiate between things. That's easy enough to prove, you may be thinking. Lions differentiate between prey and their young; antelope between grass and the cheetah. It doesn't take much brainpower to know about the Law of Non-Contradiction in a working fashion, regardless of whether we can state the idea formally or not. Yes, that is true. But once again, we are not delving into the subject as deeply as we must if this is where we leave it. How is it that all things live according to the Law of Non-Contradiction? Why is it that this is so? Because it is the nature of all things to be logical. But is this true, or is it merely what we want it to be? We cannot observe all things, but we can observe ourselves. We know instinctively that something cannot be contradictory. It is unexplainable, but we know it to be true. This is some sort of higher knowledge that comes to us, beyond proof, and yet something that we are completely convinced of in our minds. It is not my intention to deny that logic exists. However, if I wanted to, using only naturalism, I could do so. You cannot logically state that logic is valid (for that is circular reasoning) and you cannot logically state that it does not without using logic (for you must use logical words in order to prove your point). Therefore to prove logic, you disprove it, and to disprove it, you prove it. How do we get around this contradiction at the very heart of the Law of Non-Contradiction? There is a simple way. We could deny the Law of Non-Contradiction. But that would destroy all logic. However, there is an even simpler way. Go beyond logic. What do I mean by this? Logic is only binding on that which is under logic. What makes logic binding is that which is over it. In other words, if there is something that makes logic valid, then logic is valid because of that something. In order for logic to exist, there must be something over it that, by nature, will give rise to logic. For example, we live under logic and that gives rise to our living under the laws of logic. That which is over logic must give rise to the laws that govern logic. God governs logic. As such, looking at logic, we discover things about God. The first law of logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction. Therefore, we can conclude that the One over logic does not contradict Himself either. This fits in with the Biblical idea that God cannot lie. But rather than being a circular argument here at this point, we are merely making it possible for logic to exist in the first place. Something that is beyond logic cannot be bound by logic; but that something will also exist in such a manner as to make logic valid. You see, here's the thing. If God cannot lie, then the Law of Non-Contradiction is valid. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship because that would be a lie. It is against God's character for a lie to be valid, for He cannot lie. Therefore, the Law of Non-Contradiction is valid and the rest of logic flowing from this law also becomes valid at the same time. We know that logic is valid because we have to use it constantly; and we also know that logic cannot prove itself to be valid, for that is Circular Reasoning as demonstrated before. There can be no other logical answer but to say that logic demands the existence of God. Logic presupposes God's existence, and by denying God you deny logic. There is nothing left for the atheist to use. If he admits to the existence of logic, he must admit to the existence of God. If he denies God, he must demonstrate how logic is valid. And that is something that cannot be done. Logic demands the existence of God. Logic, therefore, PROVES the existence of God. |
|
|