We’re excited to launch a new Q & A series featuring questions submitted by readers and conference attendees. Without further ado, here is the our first featured question, followed by Mary Jo’s answer:
Q: Do you think that the laws of logic were created by God? In other words, if God wanted to, could He have created a totally different set of logical laws?
A: The laws of logic must be grounded somewhere. If God simply created them, it would seem he could simply create any laws. However, if the laws are a natural outworking of God’s own rationality, then:
1) The laws have a grounding in God’s own nature.
2) The laws could not be different, for that would contradict God’s own rationality; his nature.
There are most likely scholars and philosophers, such as Anselm, Augustine, Cornelius Van Till, C.S. Lewis, and Alvin Plantinga who have stated these things in a much clearer and more thoughtful fashion (as well as many others).
For starters, here are two articles by friends of mine on this matter:
http://tasc-creationscience.org/content/foundation-logic-nature-god
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/
I hope you find them helpful!
Have a question of your own? Ask Mary Jo!
The articles were interesting and helpful, thanks for sharing them, you did a nice job briefly responding as well. I think it’s a great idea that you’re answering reader questions, it can become something like a mini-debate if the questions come from skeptics. People are always interested when they have an opportunity to interact.
Also, congratulations on doing this for ten years! You’re setting an example for Christians to use their minds, and that’s really important.
You are making an Equivocation Fallacy by stating that since you DON”T have the answer that it must then somehow be God much less the specific Triune God of Christianity…to do so you are making several unwarranted leaps. The Laws of Logic is the way it is because it just is and pretending to know why otherwise is a leap of illogical mistakes. I see that you are supposed to hold an “apologetics conference” in Jacksboro…have you ever debated a Freethinking Atheist before? I would like to see if you would be interested in debating somebody like myself or Matt Dillahunty, or Aron Ra? If not formally then why not exchange emails and we can further discuss your apologetics. I contend that the reason why Christians need apologetics is because there are no plain-in sight evidences regarding your claims. The sophisticated mental gymnastics of apologetics can confuse the common lay person…however there are many of us that have explored the matters further and discovered that it is in fact insubstantial and lacking strong proof. I wonder about you because it was actually the study of apologetics that lead me to atheism…was it really apologetics that lead you to your faith? I contend that faith is a way of saying I will believe something because there is no real evidence to do otherwise…
Hello Jonathan,
Thanks for leaving a comment on my new site.
1) An equivocation fallacy is when a person utilizes the same term in two or more different senses in the course of an argument (Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic, 3rd edition, page 71). It is not as you described above. Perhaps I committed a different fallacy?
2) “The Laws of Logic is the way it is because it just is”: This is a truly problematic statement for your overall thought process towards Christianity. I believe you are attempting to convince me that Christians have belief in God with a lack of grounding or proof. However, this very statement demonstrates the willingness to believe in something without grounding or proof. How do I know the laws of logic actually exist? Maybe Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates made stuff up. Perhaps I am a brain in a vat and external reality is only a delusion created by a mad-scientist.
3) Have I ever debated a Freethinking Atheist before? I’m guessing you are referring to a particular society of people of which I have not debated. I have had numerous debates and conversations over the years. In the earlier years of Facebook, I ran a debate group that had 3000 people discussing 800 topics on the existence of God. Aside from the particular society above mentioned, there were numerous atheists in that group; two that came to my second debate at a mosque in Toronto. As far as formal, public debates, I’ve had two with Muslims. However, there are many debates between atheists and Christians available for viewing online: Dillahunty versus Murray, Craig versus Dacey, Wood versus Loftus, Lennox versus Dawkins, McGrath versus Hitchens, Craig versus Hitchens, McGrath versus Dawkins, Mcgrath versus Dennett, Krauss versus Lennox, Krauss versus Craig (a couple I’ve attended in person). While I’m not opposed to a debate nor an email exhange, I’m not interested in rehashing everything in these debates, just to debate. Therefore, which of the Christian claims in these debates most needs further proof or needs the logical argument further developed/adjusted/tweaked? And if so, how so? In other words, how could that argument actually provide evidence or proof for the existence of God to a person such as yourself? If I have some knowledge in that area, I may be interested in discussing it. However, if your argument is that nothing can provide evidence for the existence of God, then our exchange would be fruitless; just as if I said nothing could ever convince me there was no God.
4) “there are no plain-in sight evidences regarding your claims.” This statement may prove problematic for scientific discoveries or theories, such as origins of the universe theories. I believe it needs adjusted or a caveat, because it seems too simplistic. I don’t mean that to come across rudely.
5) “I wonder about you because it was actually the study of apologetics that lead me to atheism…was it really apologetics that lead you to your faith?” Over the years, I have found much distrust when someone says they have good reason to believe in God. Since I do not know you or know why you would distrust me before meeting me or before attempting to understand me in a substantial and thoughtful way, I don’t have much to say on this matter. I hope I am not reading into your tone. Maybe you are honestly puzzled.
I think a reasonable look at both sides of the arguments shows that there are difficult issues which cannot be neatly wrapped up in a package of “isms.” Yet, I constantly see that way of thinking offered as legitimate critical thought in our world: “I just believe” or “I just don’t believe.” Much is lost in this manner of handling the issues, because no human holds their beliefs in a vacuum. There’s always a story with influences from multiple sources. Getting to the truth is much harder than humans generally believe, as per Francis Bacon’s four idols of the human mind.
Thank you for your time! And thanks if you read this far!
MJ