Cold Case Christianity: Is God Real? Examining Atheistic Explanations for the Laws of Logic as “Brute Realities”

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Is God Real? 

Examining Atheistic Explanations for the Laws of Logic as “Brute Realities”

January 11, 2019 God

All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes.

Which is precisely why the laws of logic are axiomatic or "brute truths".  If they are the foundation for all rational discussion, then they must be presumed true even for communications that ask about the origin of logic itself.  The only serious answer the atheist can give to "where does logic come from" would be an answer that is logically valid, thus committing the fallacy of begging the question. 

You can, of course, break the circle by giving a non-logical answer to that question, but then the lack of logic in your answer will justify the hearer to ignore the answer.  Hence, logic itself is properly exempt from questions of origin.  Those who disagree simply don't like the idea of "axioms".

Only theism, however, can adequately account for the existence of the transcendent Laws of Logic.

No, when theists 'account' for the existence of logic, the theist, like everybody else, is begging the question, since any answer she gives will have logic inhering in it already.  There is no possible way to appraise logic from the "outside", and we are forced to use logic to test logic, which is why it is automatically fallaciously circular to pretend one can "account for" logic itself.  You may as well use the shovel to dig around looking for the same shovel.

And your comment falsely presumes the laws of logic are "transcendent", which, to your audience, doesn't  mean "axiomatic", but rather "from God".

If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth;

No, the god of the bible is not perfect (Genesis 6:6-7), and in the 1st century imperfect gods were routinely worshiped.  Being 'god' does not automatically prove some absolute objective standard of truth.  But your automatically equating "god" with "absolute" is what lots of ignorant Christians do.

the Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of His nature.

First, fallacy of begging the question.  Your answer is in logically correct form, which means your answer is assuming as true the very question at issue.  If you gave a non-logical answer, this would properly break the circle, but then nobody would listen to you.  You are thus using logic to test logic.

Second, you also say certain human morals are a reflection of god's nature (Frank Turek makes a big deal out of moral realism), but there, you admit we can violate this aspect of god's "nature", while we cannot violate the laws of logic.  That is, your "nature of god" explanation is full of holes.

Third, if logic is an inescapable truth of god's nature, and if people in hell won't be able to subvert the laws of logic, then your god will also be part of hell, when in fact the Christian babies you cater to insist that hell is "separation from God", not merely separation from his love.

We will shortly find out whether you have demonstrated that logical laws reflect 'god's' nature.

God did not create these laws. They exist as an extension of His rational thinking,

So you agree god has a physical brain?  Or will you say "non-physical thinking", then start citing to the Enfield Poltergeist and Amittyville horror to prove that non-material thinking is possible?

and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself.

But if fundamentalist evangelical scholars Copan and Flannagan are correct, "kill'em all" in the bible was a case of typical Semitic exaggeration.  We thus have to wonder if those other OT texts you read like a newspaper headline, are also less than literal...such as those texts that talk about how long god has existed...like Psalm 90:2.

Is God real?

No, "god" as defined in traditional theism is a completely incoherent concept, and just like "fairy" does not escape the criticism merely because we invented a definition for it. 

Without God as a source for the transcendent Laws of Logic, this question (and any logical journey toward the answer) would be impossible to examine.

So?  Logic is axiomatic, so the failure of "explanation" is all that can be expected, there is no such thing as accounting for the origin of axioms.

But then again, you only write for Christian babies, you have neither interest nor ability to take on the better informed skeptics like myself, so you likely perceive your "apologetics" arguments as little more than preaching.   So you need to stop wondering why skeptic find none of your apologetics the least bit compelling.

As an atheist, I rejected the existence of God and offered a number of objections and alternative explanations in an effort to account for the Laws of Logic.

Which meant that you were committing the fallacy of begging the question.  It also shows that back when you were an atheist, you either didn't know, or didn't care, what "axioms" were.

In yesterday’s post we outlined the theistic explanation for these laws. Today and tomorrow we’ll examine several naturalistic objections to see if any of them might offer a viable alternative. We’ll begin with efforts to describe the Laws of Logic as “brute realities” of the universe:
 Objection:
Aren’t the Laws of Logic simply the “brute” characteristics of reality? Both material and immaterial things must abide by boundaries of existence in order to exist in the first place. The “Laws of Logic” are simply a part of these boundaries. They are not transcendent laws from a Transcendent Mind; they are simply among the natural boundaries of existence.
 Both theists and atheists agree the Laws of Logic are brute somethings. Atheists might claim Logic is a brute, innate fact of existence, while theists might argue Logic is a brute, innate reflection of the nature and thinking of God. In either case, these laws would have to be eternal, uncaused and necessary.

No, logic is caused.  Logic is relative to language.  Where there is no language, there is no law of non-contradiction.  You may say matter never violates the law of non-contradiction in absence of language, but you cannot communicate that idea without language.  Having logic apart from language is like having spelling apart from letters.

Nothing can exist without the simultaneous existence of these laws. But let’s now look at how both sides account for their existence:
 On Atheism
The brute Laws of Logic simply exist. They are eternal and uncaused. Nothing can exist without them. That’s just the way it is.

Forgetting your "uncaused" falsehood, yes, the laws of logic are axiomatic, and therefore, properly exempt from the question of why they exist, or where they come from, except the obvious fact that they inhere in language.

On Theism
God is eternal, uncaused, omniscient and omnipotent.

You pretend as if classical theism is just as foregone a conclusion as Jesus' resurrection, despite your knowing that many Christian scholars deny God's "omniscience" and "omnipotence".

He is the all-knowing and all-powerful Creator;

same answer.

the necessary, uncaused first cause of all matter, space and time.

Except that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that matter itself can come into existence, and the 1st law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is of infinite age.  The reasonableness of that position is not going to disappear merely because you quote the bible or connect the big bang with Genesis 1:1.  You either show that matter itself can come into existence (which you won't do apart from favoring the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics over all the other schools), or you are forced to agree that there is no evidence that matter cannot come into existence, and therefore, if it does exist, has simply always existed.

He has thoughts and possesses a particular character, essence and nature.

So God has a physical brain?  Or will you cite to ghosts and things that go bump in the night and J.P. Moreland's defense of mind-body dualism to pretend that non-physical thinking is a legitimate concept?

Because He is all-powerful and all-knowing, these attributes are perfected (an all-powerful and all-knowing God has the power to eliminate imperfection).

Sorry, I'm not a classical theist, because the bible authors did an imperfect of job of covering up their god's imperfections.  if you don't need much of a reason to be completely apathetic toward a sadistic lunatic, I don't need much of a reason to ignore the divinely caused atrocities in Deut. 28:15-62, which that god will be "delighted" to inflict on disobedient people, v. 63.  Those atrocities include rape (v. 30) and parental cannibalism (v. 53-57).  No thanks.

The Laws of Logic are simply an attribute and reflection of God’s perfect existence;

But we can break the moral laws that you say are a reflection of his existence, so apparently, if something reflects god's nature, we can break it.  Since we cannot break logic, it probably doesn't reflect your god's nature.  Otherwise, you'll have to explain how humans could have ability to break god's morals but not his logic.  Before you tell the babies that god gave Adam and Eve "freewill", I suggest you consult with Steve Hays or other Christian who is a Five Point Calvinist.  I'll look you up again in about 35 years so I can see whether god's likeminded ones, armed with the same bible, were able to get their act together in how they understand god's "clear" word.

God does not create these laws, they are an innate and immutable aspect of His nature.

And space dust comes from flying pigs.

As God is necessary for all else to exist, so are the Laws of Logic. They are merely a reflection of His Being, and they permeate all of His creation.

You have demonstrated NOTHING.  You are simply insisting that it is so.  I don't feel sympathy for you because you should know enough to realize that when you are dealing with an issue that has no empirically demonstrable ties to physical reality, you are dealing in a horrifically nebulous area highly prone to flights of imaginative fancy.  No, atheists are not exempt from such stupidity. 

Both the atheist and the theist agree something is eternal, uncaused and necessary. But when the atheist says the Laws of Logic “simply exist”, he’s begging the question; he’s not providing an explanation for the eternal, uncaused and necessary existence of the laws (saying they exist does not provide us with an explanation for their existence).

That's because anything that is "axiomatic" is by definition exempt from the question of origin.  Apparently, you think it proper to ask where axioms come from, perhaps indicating your abilities in philosophy are no better than your abilities in apologetics.  But as long as your childish bullshit keeps the money rolling in, makes sense to be childish.

Theists, on the other hand, can make a case for God’s existence from a number of evidential lines, providing a reasonable foundation from which logical absolutes can then be elucidated.

Nope, I've already explained why logic is an axiom, and therefore, not subject to "where did it come from" analysis.

In addition, atheism fails to explain how the Laws of Logic can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causing all other contingent realities.

Because those logical laws are axiomatic, and hence properly exempt from efforts at "explaining" their basis or origin.

Theism, on the other hand, accounts for the existence of the Laws of Logic by pointing to the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent uncaused, first cause possessing perfect rationality (by virtue of His limitless power) who also acts as the first cause of all other dependent (contingent) creations.

No, you are just a classical theist who mistakes his classical theism for "theism" proper, despite knowing of other Christian scholars who deny classical theism and adopt open-theism.

Objection:
Aren’t the “Laws of Logic” simply the result of observations we make of the world in which we live? We discovered the Laws of Physics from our observations of the natural world; can’t we discover the Laws of Logic in a similar way?
 The Laws of Logic are conceptual. They only exist in the mind.

Which is physical.

They don’t describe physical behaviors or actions of matter, but instead describe conceptual truths.

Which is why they are nothing more than the function of language.

Logical axioms are statements dealing with conceptual patterns and processes of thought.

Oh, ok:  so you know that logic is axiomatic...so why are you pretending atheists cannot "account for" logic, when anything that is axiomatic is exempt from such questions?  Maybe your desire to preach is greater than your desire to understand correctly?

Consider the analogy to physics as a point of contrast. Newton’s three Laws of Motion (for example) may be conceptual as statements, but they describe actual physical behaviors we can observe. This is an important difference relative to the Laws of Logic. Logical absolutes cannot be observed and do not describe the behavior or actions of material objects.
 Now let’s consider an example atheism might present as proof we learn the Laws of Logic from our observations of the natural world. Someone might argue our careful observations of a sea shell, for example, reveal Laws of Logic. Recognizing the shell exists only as a shell (it is not a fish – nor does it ever become a fish) we might then posit and formulate the Law of Identity or the Law of Non-Contradiction. From this simple example, an atheist might claim the Laws of Logic can be discovered from observations of material objects.

Not this atheist...he knows that when we begin to use language to communicate about the sea shell, we will be presupposing the validity of the very logic that is being questioned.  Logic is axiomatic.  YOU are the one who is in the wrong for pretending we can legitimately inquire into logic's origin. The only thing we can say is that it is relative to language.  There are no "laws of logic" that matter "obeys" in the absence of language.  You have to use language, such as "why don't rocks violate the law of non-contradiction whenever language-producing life forms aren't nearby?"  No language?  No logic, real easy.  But even this attempt to locate the origin of logic commits the fallacy of begging the question since the attempt presupposes the validity of the logic being questioned.

But let’s think carefully about this.

Did you mean "let's use logic to evaluate itself"?

Yes, the shell does not change. And yes, we can observe this physical reality. But we then do something very interesting; we assign a logical absolute to the observation we just made.

Because we have language.

We assign something conceptual to our observation of matter. The mere fact we made an observation and then assigned a logical absolute to the observation does not then account for the existence of all logical absolutes in the first place.

I agree that the kind of atheist you respond to here, is indeed in the wrong.

Our observations may support the pre-existence of logical absolutes, but this does not mean our observations established the Laws of Logic. See the difference?

Yes, but you continue failing to see that because the law of logic are axiomatic, it is fallacious to ask for their basis or origin.  Once again, to even try to do so, is to beg the question, since your comments would be already presuming the very validity of the logic you are otherwise trying to 'account' for. 

We don’t form the Laws of Logic from the observations; we instead confirm the pre-existing logical truths with our observations.

Only if we have language.  Last I checked, bacteria don't wonder about the law of non-contradiction.  You will never demonstrate logic to exist apart from language.

The Laws of Logic pre-exist our arrival in the universe.

No, they are relative to language.  You may as well talk about "quickness" in absence of movement.

We discover them, and in so doing, discover something about the nature of the universe’s Creator.

Atheism's alleged wrongness is irrelevant:  Jesus' resurrection is provably false, which means Christianity is false, which means Christianity has been misrepresenting the OT YHWH for 2,000 years, and since the OT is far more explicit that God hates false prophets than that he hates those who completely ignore him (Deut. 13, Deut. 18), we can be sure that, if the god of Judaism is the god the Christian will fall back on after discovering Jesus didn't rise from the dead, this god is likely more pissed off at Christians than at atheists.

Hence, god's basic existence is irrelevant, even if true.  You simply have no credible evidence that the alleged "wrongness" of atheism is supposed to be some type of urgent danger.  Not so.  Also wouldn't matter if the danger to atheists was real, you cannot demosntrate any such contention.  Well gee, what do you do if you checked the house and found no intruders?  Stay outside forever merely because to be wrong is to risk death?  No.

The Laws of Logic pre-exist our arrival in the universe.

No, they are relative to language.

We discover them,

Because we have chosen to define certain things as opposites.