The Laws of Logic
Only the Bible can make sense of the standards by which we evaluate whether or not something is true. One such set of standards are the laws of logic. We all know that a true claim cannot contradict another true claim. That would violate a law of logic: the law of non-contradiction. The statements “The light is red” and “The light is not red” cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Laws of logic thus represent a standard by which we can judge certain truth claims. Moreover, all people seem to “know” laws like the law of non-contradiction. We all assume that such laws are the same everywhere and apply at all times without exception. But why is this? How do we know such things?
If we consider the biblical worldview, we find that we can make sense of the laws of logic. The Bible tells us that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge because, “God . . . has perfect knowledge” (Job 37:15,16 NIV). “God has hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ” (Colossians 2:3).
“God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son . . . through whom also he created the world . . . and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”—Hebrews 1:1-3 ESV
Since God upholds the entire universe, and since he is beyond time, we would expect that laws of logic apply everywhere in the universe and at all times. There can never be an exception to a law of logic because God’s mind is sovereign over all truth. We can know laws of logic because we are made in God’s image and are thus able to think in a way that is consistent with His nature (Genesis 1:27). So, when we take the Bible as our worldview, we find that laws of logic make sense.
But if we don’t accept the Bible as true, we are left without a foundation for laws of logic. How could we know (apart from God) that laws of logic work everywhere? After all, none of us have universal knowledge. We have not experienced the future nor have we travelled to distant regions of the universe. Yet we assume that laws of logic will work in the future as they have in the past and that they work in the distant cosmos as they work here. But how could we possibly know that apart from revelation from God?
11 thoughts on “The Laws of Logic”
BA: Logic studies valid forms of inference like modus ponens.
GW: I agree.
BA: Only the Bible can make sense of the standards by which we evaluate whether or not something is true.
GW: False. The Bible is not a person. Only persons can make sense of those standards. Maybe you mean that the authors of the Bible, who are persons, can make sense of those standards. Some probably can, and some probably cannot. Let’s see.
BA: One such set of standards are the laws of logic.
GW: Yes, that is true, and another such set of standards are the rules of evidence.
BA: We all know that a true claim cannot contradict another true claim. That would violate a law of logic: the law of non-contradiction.
GW: Yes, I agree.
BA: The statements “The light is red” and “The light is not red” cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.
GW: Yes, that is a good example.
BA: Laws of logic thus represent a standard by which we can judge certain truth claims.
GW: Yes, I agree.
BA: Moreover, all people seem to “know” laws like the law of non-contradiction.
GW: False. Human fetuses, babies, and young children do not seem to know this, but most adults seem to know this.
BA: We all assume that such laws are the same everywhere and apply at all times without exception.
GW: Almost all of us assume this claim is true. (Henceforth, I am referring to adults when I refer to people in this discussion.)
BA: But why is this? How do we know such things?
GW: We know this thing for two reasons: 1) the structure and processes of our brain, and 2) our experience with the world.
BA: If we consider the biblical worldview, we find that we can make sense of the laws of logic.
GW: If we consider the natural and secular worldview, we find that we can make sense of the laws of logic.
BA: The Bible tells us that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge because, “God . . . has perfect knowledge” (Job 37:15,16 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would be all-knowing, but unfortunately he does not exist.
BA: “God has hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ” (Colossians 2:3 GWT).
GW: Version? This claim is false. If God did exist, he would not hide anything important from us. For example, he would not hide himself, his powers, the Correct Universal Ethics for Persons, or the consequences of compliance and noncompliance. He would frequently, clearly, and directly present these important things to us. To all living persons at the same time!
BA: “God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son . . . through whom also he created the world . . . and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”—Hebrews 1:1-3 ESV
GW: False. If God did exist, he would not use prophets or offspring to communicate with us. He would do his own communications. Why in the world do you think he would use prophets or offspring? That is not a rational idea.
BA: Since God upholds the entire universe,…
GW: False. If God did exist, he would not “uphold the entire universe.” Instead, he would create the universe to persist on its own unless he took it out of existence.
BA: ….and since he is beyond time,…
GW: False again! If God did exist, he would be in time, in fact, eternal in time. If God somehow existed outside of time, then he would never do anything, including create the universe. Duh. If any one event occurs, there is time. There is a before, a during, and an after.
BA: we would expect that laws of logic apply everywhere in the universe and at all times.
GW: We expect that, even though God does not exist. We don’t even need belief in God to expect that. Every time we have tested a law of logic, it has worked.
BA: There can never be an exception to a law of logic because God’s mind is sovereign over all truth. We can know laws of logic because we are made in God’s image and are thus able to think in a way that is consistent with His nature (Genesis 1:27).
GW: But God does not exist. We have used the laws of logic and of evidence to prove that God does not exist. So, God is irrelevant to these laws.
BA: So, when we take the Bible as our worldview, we find that laws of logic make sense.
GW: These laws make sense without the Bible, God, or belief in God. Atheists use these same laws.
BA: But if we don’t accept the Bible as true, we are left without a foundation for laws of logic.
GW: False. I gave the two foundations earlier. See above.
BA: How could we know (apart from God) that laws of logic work everywhere?
GW: By testing them and showing that they work everywhere we test them. Imagine trying to cross the street and thinking “I will get hit by a car” and “I will not get hit by a car” at the same time. See how that doesn’t work.
BA: After all, none of us have universal knowledge.
GW: I agree. But if God did exist, he would have universal knowledge and he would share some of that, the important stuff, with us.
BA: We have not experienced the future nor have we travelled to distant regions of the universe.
GW: If God did exist, would he do either of those? Does he need to do those to have universal knowledge? Interesting questions.
BA: Yet we assume that laws of logic will work in the future as they have in the past and that they work in the distant cosmos as they work here. But how could we possibly know that apart from revelation from God?
GW: We don’t know that the laws of logic will work always into the future, and we don’t need to know this. We rationally assume that they will work always into the future because they have always worked in the past. This is sufficient. That is dependability.
BA: So, when we take the Bible as our worldview, we find that laws of logic make sense.
GW: These laws make sense without the Bible, God, or belief in God. Atheists use these same laws.
BA–Atheists and everyone else are bound by the laws of logic.
Laws come from a lawgiver, or lawmaker.
BA*: Laws come from a lawgiver, or lawmaker.
GW: Not all of them. Only the laws which are prescriptions or prohibitions. For example, the “laws of nature” are just descriptions of the way reality works. The don’t come from a lawgiver, i.e. a legislator.
GW: “Any person X should not murder any person Y” is the kind of law which is a prohibition, and the lawgiver or lawmaker is a group of human persons. Since God does not exist, he doesn’t do anything, even issue laws.
GW: However, if God did exist. he would regularly present his laws, i.e. Correct Universal Ethics for Persons, to all persons AT THE SAME TIME! If you think he would not, then present your case.
GW: Not all of them. Only the laws which are prescriptions or prohibitions. For example, the “laws of nature” are just descriptions of the way reality works. The don’t come from a lawgiver, i.e. a legislator.
BA—Every law comes from a lawmaker. Descriptions of laws are just that, but are not the laws themselves.
BA: Every law comes from a lawmaker.
GW: I have already refuted this. If you disagree, then prove that the natural law of gravity was issued by a lawmaker.
BA: Descriptions of laws are just that, but are not the laws themselves.
GW: This is a contradiction which violates the logical law of noncontradiction. You are asserting “Law are not the laws.” Maybe you did not state what you wanted to say. If so, try again. Explain yourself.
No, you misconstrued it. We said:
“Descriptions of laws are just that, but are not the laws themselves.”
No, you are thinking about it incorrectly. These kinds of laws are laws themselves.
Unlike other laws which prescribe, these laws describe.
A natural law is a description of the regular patterns or order in the universe.
A legislative law is a prescription (or prohibition) about how people should behave (or not behave).
You’re confusing and misconstruing this subject.
“Natural law” is distinct from a description of that law.
“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody.”—Werhner von Braun, February 1976
You are still failing to understand the difference of natural laws and legislative laws.
Of course, human beings may use natural laws to do engineering. Nobody is disputing that.
You have not proven that the orderliness of the universe, which is DESCRIBED in natural laws, was created by God. But how could you do that when God does not exist? Even little ole me has proven that God does not exist, and many others have also.
On the other hand, if God did exist he would create some other kinds of laws — statements of how persons should and should not behave. These are legislative laws or normative laws.
“The laws of physics are supremely fit for life and the cosmos gives every appearance of having been specifically and optimally tailored to that end”—Nature’s Destiny, page 13, by Michael Denton, molecular biologist
Denton is mistaken about this. The laws of physics only enable life. They are neither supremely fit for life nor do they give the appearance of being optimally tailored for life. There are other possible laws which would be supremely fit and tailored for life and we don’t have them. Most of the universe, which the laws describe, is hostile to life. This is why life is relatively rare. So far, we know life to exist on only one planet.
Denton is a molecular biologist who does apply Reason to the issue of God’s existence. He is a theist.
God does not exist. We now know this. It has been proven. I have many proofs of this. I presented two to you, in which you have still found no errors.
Did you see the new Pew data on religion? Religion is in decline.