Most of us don’t think much about the physical or non-physical laws of the universe necessary for us to exist (and make sense of our existence). As an example, we usually take the law of gravity for granted; it doesn’t really matter how the law operates or what forces lie behind it. We simply accept the fact we live in a world where gravity is a reality. In a similar way, there are many conceptual laws we also take for granted. These abstract truths order our world and guide our exploration and experience. One area of conceptual truth involves a body of concepts we call the Laws of Logic. Is God real? The existence of the Laws of Logic may provide us with an answer.
All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. You’d have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic weren’t available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries. Here are three of the most important Laws of Logic you and I use every day:
That's precisely why logic is "axiomatic", and if you know what axioms are, then you recognize that they are exempt from the question of origins. That's why "where did logic come from" is an invalid question, despite how appealing it is to Christian apologists.
The Law of IdentityThings “are” what they “are”. “A” is “A”. Each thing is the same with itself and different from another. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features.The Law of Non-Contradiction“A” cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time, in the same way and in the same sense. Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.The Law of Excluded MiddleA statement is either true or false. For any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true. There is no middle position. For example, the claim that “A statement is either true or false” is either true or false.These logical rules are necessary in order for us to examine truth statements. We also need them to point out when someone is reasoning illogically. We use the Laws of Logic all the time; you couldn’t even begin to read or reason through this blog post if you didn’t employ these laws. In fact, you’ve never had an intelligent, rational conversation without using these laws. They’re not a matter of subjective opinion; they are, instead, objectively true. So, here’s an important question: “From where do the transcendent, objective laws of logic come?”
My answer to that question could not be serious unless it already
presupposed the validity of the very logic that the answer is supposed to be accounting
for. So asking where logic comes from, constitutes the logical fallacy
of begging the question. All questions that require the answer to
commit a logical fallacy, are illegitimate questions. Dismissed. Next?
See above, logic is axiomatic. There is no such thing accounting for axioms, anymore than there is sense in asking where god came from. In the ladder of reasoning, there is going to be an absolute first rung, and because it is first, there is no "where did it come from" to discuss in the first place. It's just there. But because most people are constantly bombarded with derivative things that originated from something else babies, clouds, pizza, cars, bibles) they are deceived into thinking that anything we can choose to discuss, surely "came from" somewhere. Not so. There are brute truths, which by their nature JUST ARE.As an atheist, I would have been the first to describe myself as rational. In fact, I saw myself as far more reasonable than many of the Christians I knew. But, I was basing my rationality on my ability to understand and employ the Laws of Logic. How could I account for these transcendent laws without the existence of a transcendent Law Giver?
But to the average person, that something "just exists" without an origin point, being contrary to their daily experience, it is almost impossible to accept that anything outside their "god" fairy tale could just exist as a brute truth. Welcome to the real world.
I have deleted the rest of Wallace's argument because the above conclusively shows the fallacy of trying to account for the laws of logic. One could avoid the questoin-begging problem by giving a non-logical account for the laws of logic, but by solving that problem you create another: if your answer is in fact, non-logical, only a fool would waste his time trying to 'seriously' consider its merits.
Therefore the laws of logic, being exempt from questions about why they exist, therefore do not express or imply "god". As soon as you ask somebody to account for the laws of logic, you are asking them to either give a non-logical answer, or to beg the question of logic's validity.
Now tell yourself God's ways are mysterious so you can feel better about how "accountable" atheists really are to your invisible nothing in the sky.
