Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria
Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints

Debates
   JacobMichael
General
   General
Philosophy
   Abortion
   Anthropology
   Culture
   DeathPenalty
   Evolution
   Logic
   Objectivism
   Relativism
   ScientificMethod
   TheisticNihilism
Theology
   Arminianism
   Baptism
   Calvinism
   History
   Hyper-Calvinism
   Islam
   Mormonism
   OriginalSin
   RomanCatholicism
   Theology101

Most Recent Files

* Justification And The Mass -- 10 Mr. Pike's Cross-Examination Rebuttal
* Justification And The Mass -- 09 Mr. Pike Cross-Examines Mr. Michael
* Justification And The Mass -- 08 Mr. Michael's Cross-Examination Rebuttal
* Justification And The Mass -- 07 Mr. Michael Cross Examines Mr. Pike
* Justification And The Mass -- 06 Mr. Michael's Second Rebuttal

Logic Proves The Existence of God: Part II

Category: Philosophy:Logic

Logic Proves the Existence of God: Part II

Having seen that logic does not allow itself to be proven by circular reasoning, and yet can only be proven invalid if it is valid, it must necessarily follow that something which denies itself by proving itself would be necessarily true if the part that "denies" it is removed; therefore, it becomes a logical necessity that something other than logic causes logic to be true, and that something we have labeled X for the time being, since it is an unknown.1

What can be known about this X, this unknown verifier of logic? The first thing that can be known is that it is. If it didn't exist², then logic is invalid. X must be something in order for the statement "Logic is valid because...X" to be valid. In order for logic to work, this X must exist. In other words, it establishes the law of Identity. X is what it is (whatever that may be).

The critic might very well at this point ask the question: "Aren't you using logic to prove X to prove logic? Isn't that just a larger, expanded version of circular reasoning because you are assuming logic to be valid in order to prove something that will make logic valid?" This is indeed an important argument to consider. If X were within the system of logic, we would have a great problem, as nothing would be solved--there would still be a circular argument which logic demands is invalid. However, simply removing X from the system of logic easily solves this problem. That is, X cannot be defined by logic; rather X itself defines logic. As a result, X must be viewed in a hierarchical sense as being above logic. Logic demands this in order for it to be valid.

We also know that, in order for logic to be valid, there can never be a time when logic did not function. If there ever was a time when the Law of Identity or the Law of Non-Contradiction was not valid, then logic is not valid because logic states that there can never be a violation of those laws. As a result, logic is eternal and X must be eternal too. If there were ever a point in time that X did not exist, then logic would not be valid at that point (because at that point we would no longer have the argument "Logic is valid because…X" but instead the circular reasoning that destroys logic). As a result, the eternality of logic forces the eternality of X.

If something is truly eternal, then that something must be self-existent, or a result of something else that is self-existent and holds X as part of its self-existence ³, for it is impossible for something to create itself. In order to create itself, it would have to exist before it exists in order to create itself-a state that would result in a contradiction (for A would be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship).

So we know that X, whatever it is, exists, is eternal, is self-existent (or caused by something self-existent), and is outside the realm of logic yet defines what logic is. This sounds like magic-like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It does seem like we are simply defining this X and making it appear and take on these traits. But please note that if you assume logic is valid then these things must be true because there is no other way to satisfy the requirements of logic. Anything less than having an eternal, self-existent X outside of the realm of logic results in circular reasoning, which defeats logic. Logic becomes nothing more than a system that shoots itself in the foot.

In order for logic to be valid you must presuppose the existence of an eternal X that is outside the realm of logic. As such, it cannot be understood solely by logic. However, it is necessary that whatever this X is causes logic to be valid⁴.

As such, we can thereby say that X is logical. X will behave in a manner that is logical, because we have seen how rigid and steadfast logic is. Whatever causes logic must be rigid and steadfast likewise, or else it would not cause logic to behave in that manner. In short, X must be immutable (unchanging). If it were to change, then logic would also change. But if logic were to change, then the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradiction are invalid and logic reverts to being useless.

As we have seen, X is very complex. X exists, is eternal, immutable, outside of the realm of logic and yet causes logic to be valid, and it is either self-existent or caused by something that is self-existent and that has always caused X. It is my contention that only one being can fill this role: God ⁵.

I can already predict that atheists will be scrambling to find anything they can to get out of this. Unfortunately for them, this is the simple reality. Logic presupposes the existence of God. Without God, logic cannot prove anything. Without God, there is no logic.

When I say that logic presupposes the existence of God, there is no way around this fact. Some may very well wish to just hold to a "mystery" and not believe in God because it is an uncomfortable thought. Logic has been used many times to discredit religious experiences; it just doesn't feel "right" that it should necessarily prove God's existence.

Logic demands that there be something besides logic that makes it valid. It cannot exist in circular reasoning, or else it is futile. Some people have tried to get around this by saying that logic is merely the recognition of symbols and the passive recognition of the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Identity. Some have argued that the existence of matter itself demonstrates logic. Because matter exists, then logic exists, they argue.

However, matter cannot solve all the requirements of X. Even if we were to claim that matter is self-existent and has always been in the universe, we know that matter is not immutable. We observe changes in the environment all the time. Naturally, the scientist will say that this is unfair because matter is still matter and can only be changed to energy and back, but the Greek philosophers developed logic without an understanding of this principle so it cannot be vital to the functioning of logic.

Indeed, if we take the empiricist's approach then we are stuck with the fact that we do not actually know much about matter at all. We do not know its inherent properties to any great extent. Very few have ever observed any nuclear action-most of what we know is based on experiments that we never saw and research that we never read. We only believe what is passed on to us from whoever wants to further their agenda ⁶. The world that we see is only a tiny fraction of the vastness of the earth. The earth is but a small dot in the solar system, which in turn is a meaningless nothing in the vastness of space. It is impossible to empirically state anything absolutely about the universe and reality because we only know a small portion of it⁷. We would first have to assume that it is uniform, something that we would have no proof of and would, of necessity, take on faith alone.

Likewise, our passive recognition of the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Identity makes logic a simple thought construct. If logic is valid only in our minds, then there is no proof of anything. The atheist cannot make any statement of certainty on any issue, because the logic that he uses is only based in his own mind. No two people think the same way, and therefore if logic is merely thought constructs, no two people will have the same logic. If logic is not universal, then logic is worthless as a means of explaining anything.

As a result, the theist finds himself in the position of not having to take God's existence on faith (the only faith involved is in deciding which God is valid), and the atheist is left with a position based solely on faith with nothing else going for it. The logic that the atheist held to so dearly has deserted him-it has proven God necessary-and so the atheist must come up with another explanation for all that exists, because any statement using logic presupposes the existence of God.

This means that as soon as an atheist begins an argument, he has already lost it, for he cannot make an argument without using logic, and he cannot use logic without presupposing the existence of God. An atheist, likewise, cannot debate these issues using logic, for he has no reason to use logic at all. Logic itself demands the existence of X, and X, as we have seen, can only be described as "God."

But furthermore, this means that as soon as an atheist begins to do anything requiring logic-as soon as he balances his checkbook, or reads a book, or speaks in a complete sentence-then he has admitted the existence of God. Logic demands God's existence, and the consistent atheist cannot use it at all. Since everyone is forced to use logic then it is obvious and inescapable that there is no reason for anyone to doubt the existence of God. The Bible passage in Psalm 53:1 is proven right: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (NASB).

NOTES

¹ It is true that sometimes language gets complicated when dealing with philosophical issues. However, given the importance of this discussion, the reader is encouraged to do his or her best to understand the concepts being presented before moving on. Back

² It must be pointed out that this existence does not necessarily mean a physical existence.

Back

³ Since logic itself acts as though it is self-existent, then the same thing must be said of X. That is, it is even though it is possible that X is caused by something else that is self-existent and is not self-existent itself, whatever else that self-existent being may be, it must have always had X to make logic valid.Back

⁴ This is necessary if we assume logic to be valid because whatever makes it valid would have to actually do its job or we haven't solved anything.Back

⁵ By God I mean specifically the Christian idea of God, even more specifically the Reformed (Calvinistic) idea of God. This is outside the scope of this current essay to fully comment upon, however.Back

⁶ This was demonstrated nicely by the recent findings showing that the National Forest Service had planted Spotted Owl traces in forests to keep them from being harvested by lumber companies. Other examples include such hoaxes as the Piltdown Man. All these show that if scientist are willing to deceive for political and ideological reasons, then there is no reason they wouldn't do the same for religious reasons.Back

⁷ The fallacy of using data from a small test area to form ideas of the whole is called the error of Composition. The whole is not like its individual parts, as anyone who studied chemistry knows. Sodium (Na) and Chloride (Cl) are both poisonous to humans, yet combined (NaCl) they are mere table salt, a necessary ingredient for life.Back

Menu

Logic Proves the Existence of God: Part II

NOTES