What is Logic?
Logic is the process of proper inference. It is the system of thinking properly–of arriving at proper conclusions. It is the process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern the validity of arguments.
The first law of logic is the Law of Identity. It states that something is what it is and is not what it is not. For example, a rock is a rock and not a frog.
The second law of logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. In other words, two contradictory statements cannot both be true.
The third law of logic is the Law of Excluded Middle, which says that a statement is either true or false. “We are here” is a true statement. “The planet Mars is in my pocket” is not a true statement.
Law of Identity
The Law of Identity is the first of the three new laws of classical logic. It states that an object is what it is and is not what it is not. In other words, A = A. It is one of the three classical laws of logic. The other two are the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle.
Law of Non-Contradiction
The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, the chair in my living room, right now, cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time. In the law of non-contradiction, where we have a set of statements about a subject, we cannot have any of the statements in that set negate the truth of any other statement in that same set. For example, we have a set of two statements about Judas. 1) Judas hanged himself. 2) Judas fell down, and his bowels spilled out. Neither statement about Judas contradicts the other. That is, neither statement makes the other impossible because neither excludes the possibility of the other. The statements can be harmonized by stating: Judas hanged himself, then his body fell down, and his bowels spilled out.
In order to make the set of statements contradictory, we would have something like: 1) Judas hanged himself. 2) Judas did not hang himself. Since either statement excludes the possibility of the other, we would then have a contradiction since both could not be true. However, to say that Judas hanged himself and Judas fell are not contradictory since both could occur.
Law of Excluded Middle
The Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) is one of the three basic laws in classical . It says that “Statements are either true or false.” Or as have some put it, “A statement is true, or its negation is true.” Some reject this law and assert that there is a third option, namely, that the truth or falsity of the statement can be unknown. But, it would seem that being unknown does not negate the proposition that the statement is either true or false. It just means its truth or falseness is not known.
The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God
This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God using the Laws of Logic, also referred to as Logical Absolutes. The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form below, goes as follows: Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature–are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different–not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God. Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated. Therefore, part of the argument is that the atheist position cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes from its worldview.
1. Logical Absolutes
1. Law of Identity
1. Something is what it is and isn’t what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. For example, a cloud is a cloud–not a rock. A fish is a fish–not a car.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction
1. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
2. For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
3. Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)
1. A statement is either true or false without a middle ground.
2. “I am alive” is either true or false. “You are pregnant” is either true or false.
1. Note one: “This statement is false” is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.
2. Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence “this statement is false” does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.
3. Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes.
2. Logical absolutes are truth statements such as:
1. That which exists has attributes and a nature.
1. A cloud exists and has the attributes of whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air.
2. A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite, marble, sediment, etc.).
2. Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
1. It cannot be true to state that a rock is not a rock.
3. Something cannot bring itself into existence.
1. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions. Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.
4. Truth is not self-contradictory.
1. It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this.
5. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.
3. Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse.
1. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
2. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
1. For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non-contradiction).
2. But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements.
3. If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can’t be true.
4. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth.
5. If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
4. Logical Absolutes are transcendent.
1. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
1. They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.
2. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
1. They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
3. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.
1. People’s minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
2. If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.
5. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
1. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
2. If they were properties of the universe, then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. Since they cannot be measured, they are not properties of the universe.
4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
1. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence and that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The condition of the universe does not effect these truths.
2. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
3. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
6. Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
1. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, it seems proper to say that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature since Logical Absolutes are truth statements about Logical things.
1. If you disagree that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature, then please explain what they are if not conceptual realities.
2. If you cannot determine what they are, then how can you logically assert that they are not conceptual realities since logic is a process of the mind and logical absolutes are truth statements which are also products of the mind? Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature, or they are not.
2. If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.
1. If they are dependent on the physical universe for their existence, then are they said to be properties of the universe the same way that red is a property of an apple?
2. If Logical Absolutes are said to be properties of the universe, then can they be measured the same way that other properties of the universe can be measured? If they cannot, then how are they properties of the physical universe?
3. If they are not properties of the universe and they are of the mind, then it seems proper to say that they are conceptual by nature, and that they depend on mind for their existence.
3. If they are not conceptual by nature, then:
1. What is their nature?
2. If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or not conceptual, then this is impossible because “conceptual or not conceptual” entails all possible options. Either Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature or they are not.
3. If they are not conceptual by nature, then what are they? If it is not known what they are, then how can it be said what they are not since, it seems fair to say, that knowing what something is not also entails knowing something about what it is?
1. For example, I know what water is. If someone says that a piece of wood is water by nature, I would say that it is not. If someone says that a frying pan is water by nature, I would say it is not. If someone were to say to me that a “flursist” (a word I just made up that represents an unknown thing) is by nature hard, how then can I rationally deny such a claim by saying “I don’t know what a flursist is, but I know it isn’t hard”? The response would be, “Since you don’t know what it is, how do you know what it is not?” Is the response correct or not correct?
7. Thoughts reflect the mind
1. A person’s thoughts are the product of that person’s mind.
2. A mind that is irrational will produce irrational thoughts.
3. A mind that is rational will produce rational thoughts.
4. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts.
5. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
6. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space; and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.
8. Objections Answered
1. Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence.
1. In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter?
2. How does one chemical state of the physical brain that leads to another physical state of the physical brain produce Logical Absolutes that are not dependent upon the physical brain for their validity?
3. If they are a part of natural existence (the universe), then they would cease to exist if the universe ceased.
1. This has not been proven to be true.
2. It implies that logic is a property of physical matter, but this is addressed in point 5 above.
2. Logical Absolutes simply exist.
1. This is begging the question by saying they exist because they exist and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer.
3. Logical Absolutes are axioms
1. An axiom is a truth that is self-evident. To say that Logical Absolutes are axioms is to beg the question by saying they are simply self-evident truths because they are self-evident truths and fails to account for their existence.
4. Logical Absolutes are conventions.
1. A convention, in this context, is an agreed upon principle. But since people differ on what is and is not true, then logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds and therefore are not human conventions, that is, of human agreements.
2. This would mean that logical absolutes were invented as a result of an agreement by a sufficient number of people. But this would mean that logical absolutes are a product of human minds, which cannot be the case since human minds differ and are often contradictory. Furthermore, the nature of logical absolutes is that they transcend space and time (not dependent on space and time for their validity) and are absolute (they don’t change) by nature. Therefore, they could not be the product of human minds which are finite and not absolute.
3. This would mean that if people later disagreed on what was a Logical Absolute, then the absolutes would change based on “vote,” and they would not then be absolute.
5. Logical Absolutes are eternal.
1. What is meant by stating they are eternal?
2. If a person says that logical absolutes have always existed, then how is it they could exist without a mind (if the person denies the existence of an absolute and transcendent mind)? After all, logic is a process of the mind.
6. Logical Absolutes are uncaused.
1. Since the nature of logic is conceptual and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual upon which logical processes are based, it would seem logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused is if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them.
7. Logical Absolutes are self-authenticating.
1. This means that logical absolutes validate themselves. While this is true, it does not explain their existence.
2. It is begging the question. It just says they are because they are.
8. Logical Absolutes are like rules of chess, which are not absolute and transcendent.
1. The rules of chess are human inventions since Chess is a game invented by people. In fact, the rules of chess have changed over the years, but logical absolutes have not. So, comparing the rules of chess to logical absolutes is invalid.
9. There are different kinds of logic.
1. Saying there are different kinds of logic does not explain the existence of logical absolutes.
2. In different systems of logic, there must be undergirding, foundational principles upon which those systems are based. How are those foundational principles accounted for? The same issue applies to them as it does to Logical Absolutes in classical logic.
10. “Logical absolutes need no transcendental existence: saying ‘they would be true even if matter didn’t exist’ is irrelevant because we’re concerned with their existence–not their logical validity. Saying ‘the idea of a car would still exist even if matter didn’t exist’ doesn’t imply that your car is transcendental (reductio ad absurdum).”
1. Why do logical absolutes need no transcendental existence? Simply saying they don’t need a transcendental existence doesn’t make it so nor does it account for their existence.
2. Also, why is it irrelevant to say they would be true even if matter didn’t exist? On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since we’re dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual realities–not physical ones.
3. The illustration that a car would still exist if matter did not exist is illogical. By definition, a car is made of matter; and if matter did not exist, a car could not logically exist. By contrast, logical absolutes are not made of matter. The objection is invalid.
11. “Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. They are constructs in our minds (i.e., brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc., suggested by the fact that logic–like language–is learned–not inbuilt (balls in your court to demonstrate an independent existence or problem with this).” ( . . . continued in next objection . . . )
1. How do you know that logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so doesn’t make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind but are not dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of course, you wouldn’t accept this as being valid. Therefore, this demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect.
2. How can an atheist logically claim that one chemical state in the brain which leads to another state necessitates proper logical inference? It seems quite unlikely and without proof of some sort saying that Logical Absolutes are abstractions of (human) minds doesn’t account for them.
12. (continued from previous objection . . . ) “Logical absolutes are absolute and not because of some special quality but because we judge them using logic. Therefore, their absoluteness doesn’t arise from any special ontological quality (category error on your part).”
1. You are begging the question. You use logic to demonstrate that logical absolutes are absolute. You are not giving a rational reason for their existence. Instead, you assume their existence and argue accordingly.
2. Furthermore, when you presuppose the validity of logical absolutes to demonstrate they are absolute, you contradict your statement in your previous objection about them being constructs of human minds. They cannot be constructs of human minds because human minds contradict each other and themselves where Logical Absolutes do not.
3. Where is the category mistake? The nature of logical absolutes is that they are conceptual. This is something I have brought out before so that their categories do not get mixed. The nature of logical absolutes is exactly relevant to the question.
13. continued from previous objection . . . ) “Logical absolutes can be accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, any more than the wide employment of the word “lolly” as something small and yummy implies that the word “lolly” is transcendental (non sequitor).”
1. Saying that they are “widely employed does not imply anything transcendental” is inaccurate. Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally be widely employed because they are valid and transcendent; otherwise, they wouldn’t be universally used. You have recognized that they are widely used, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become transcendent because they are widely used.
2. This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes.
14. (continued from previous objection . . . ) “Logical processes are clearly carried out by material constructs, usually neural or electrical. They do this without any known “input” or “guidance” from anything transcendental, which makes you wonder why anything transcendental is needed in the equation at all (reality check).”
1. You haven’t defined “material construct” or what you mean by neural or electrical (constructs). If you mean a computer or something of that kind, this doesn’t help you because humans designed them using logic. If you mean that they are the process of the human brain, you still haven’t solved the problem of their existence; since the implication would be that if our minds do not exist, logical absolutes would not exist either. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute but dependent upon human minds. Again, the problem would be that human minds are different and contradict each other. Therefore, logical absolutes, which are not contradictory, cannot be the product of minds that are contradictory.
2. As stated above how does one establish that one chemical state in the brain which leads to another state necessitates proper logical inference? Asserting it doesn’t make it so, and concluding that chemical reactions lead to logical inferences has not yet been established to be true or even that it could be at all.
3. You don’t have to know the input or understand the guidance from anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true.
15. “Logic is one of those characteristics that any healthy human ‘has.’ It’s not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason that ‘number of eyes’ is a value that doesn’t vary between healthy humans.”
1. Saying that logic is something that everyone “has” does not explain its existence. Essentially, this is begging the question stating that something exists because it exists.
2. The analogy of “eyes” is a category mistake. Eyes are organs. Different organisms have different kinds of eyes and different numbers of eyes. Logic is consistent and independent of biological structures.
16. Logic is the result of the semantics of the language which we have chosen: a statement is a theorem of logic if and only if it is valid in all conceivable worlds. If the language is trivalent (true/indetermined/false), tertium non datur is invalid. Uniformity of the universe can be rationally expected in a non-theistic universe. If there is no one around with the transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe tomorrow differ from its behavior today?
1. “Semantics of the language.” Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non-absolute languages? Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is a result of the semantics of the language does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence–reasons given at the beginning of the paper. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid.
2. If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with language. This cannot be for the reasons stated above.
3. If logic is the result of language and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws; they are not absolute.
4. Saying that “a statement is a theorem of logic” does not account for logic but presupposes the existence of logic. This is begging the question.
9. Only two options
1. If we have only two possible options by which we can explain something and one of those options is removed, by default the other option is verified since it is impossible to negate both of the only two existing options.
2. God either exists or does not exist. There is no third option.
3. If the no-god position, atheism, clearly fails to account for Logical Absolutes from its perspective, then it is negated, and the other option is verified.
4. Atheism cannot account for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, namely, the existence of logical absolutes. Therefore, it is invalidated as a viable option for accounting for them and the only other option, God exists, is validated.
Now let’s read Laws of Logic and Religions:
Hunduism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:
The problem with Hinduism is that it offers no true foundation for salvation nor the preconditions for intelligibility. The founder of Hinduism is said to be unknown but ancient jewish documents attests that the 330 million Hindu gods were originated & inspired by angelic beings who rebelled against Yahweh. This isn’t quite a surprise as there are numerous testimonial evidence of former Hindus & others who were possessed by the kundalini spirit and was casted out of them in the name of Jesus Christ. Scripture speaks of a counterfeit holy spirit (2 Corin. 11:3).
Hinduism & the Laws of Logic: Hinduism cannot account for laws of logic. There cannot be a single set of laws of logic if there is more than one god. If there’s more than one god then truth will result to subjectivism since there would be more than one set of laws of logic. So Hinduism fails to account for the precondition of the single set of laws of logic in our reality. Also polytheistic religions cannot account for the diversity and unity of the laws of logic since polytheistic gods are diversity only. Since Hinduism affirms Monism (i.e., all is one) and denies differentiation or true distinctions, there are no contradictions and hence no law of non-contradiction. This therefore disqualifies Hinduism from being a valid precondition for the laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction. This also applies to and refutes the other world religions which affirms monism, New Age, Christian Science, Hare Krishna etc.
Hinduism & Moral Absolutes: Since in Hinduism Brahma, which accounts for the world, is not a person but an impersonal principle, it fails as a precondition for the obligation we all feel to abide by moral absolutes. Again, obligation to be moral only makes sense if we are in personal relationship with an absolute, truly personal being. Since Brahma is not a personal being, Hinduism fails as a precondition for the obligation men feel to be moral. This criticism can also be leveled against Taoism and its absolute principle called Taidi which means “Great Energy.” It is impersonal. The same can be said about the principle called Mana behind the gods of animism. Moreover, Brahma is said to be “beyond good and evil” (John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994], p. 213) and thus fails as the source of absolute morality we assume and live by. Moreover, since Hinduism affirms that all is one, this would mean that Brahma is directly responsible for all the evil in the world.
Hinduism also fails to account for the uniformity of nature. Hinduism have impersonal principles (Brahma) which do not control and sustain nature, instead of a sovereign all-controlling God like in Christianity. For, in order for the universe to be uniform it must be guided, sustained and not chaotic, unpredictable, nebulous and irrational. Moreover, Hinduism, unlike Christianity, does not account for why all men depend on the uniformity of nature day to day.
Hinduism falls into the same if not similar inconsistencies as it cannot account for moral ethics, laws of Logic, let alone reality.
Two problems always exists within these religions – the need for unity and diversity (only Christianity can account for both). Pantheism (the belief that everything is God) for example, gives an answer for the need of unity, but none for diversity.
In other words, everything is completely “One”. There is no diversity. In this impersonal worldview, they’re no distinctions (ex: right and wrong; true and false; A and Non-A; Hinduism and anti-hinduism, etc) In Vedantic Hinduism, all plurality is illusion. So, 2+2=4 wouldnt necessarily be true, since it is considered an illusionary statement.
If some Hindus believe that all is “One” and plurality is illusionary, than why would they flee from a house that’s on fire? 🔥 or a lion attack? Why should hindus worry about lions or pain if these are considered illusions?
Under this worldview, Evil is also an illusion. Hinduism lacks a universal moral standard. If everything is “Maya” (illusionary), then there can be no evil. A hindu cannot claim that acts of rape, murder, or genocide are truly evil. In fact, a Hindu can lie about something and claim that his/her Lying is just an illusion.
In a nutshell, Hinduism cannot account for reality, since all is one, creating an illusionary worldview, which cannot make sense without distinctions. Since one cannot make distinctions, and all is an illusion, Hinduism in itself is an illusion that leads to irrational worldview and makes knowledge impossible.
Buddhism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:
In order for Buddhism to be the true worldview or religion it must be able to justify the entire web of preconditions of intelligibility which are so fundamental for human intelligible experience. If Buddhism cannot provide a justification for at least one of the preconditions then it cannot justify the rest of the preconditions since they are all interrelated and operate within the web together in unity. Which would mean that the whole of Buddhism is a false belief system. The preconditions of intelligibility are:
1 Laws of logic
2 Existence of Truth
3. Meanings Behind Words
4. The One and the Many / Diversity & Unity
6. Uniformity of nature
7. Reliability of the senses
8. Validity of reasoning
9. Existence of the self
The laws of logic are universal, absolute, eternal & unchanging truths that exists in our reality. However Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent and do not hold together at all (See: “The Teaching of Buddha” [Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, 1966] 298). Since the laws of logic are unchanging and not impermanent, Buddhism fails to provide a justification for the laws of logic, which makes Buddhism a false religion by default. Buddhism teaches belief in reincarnation, as you cannot derive unchanging laws of logic in a reincarnation system where things are constantly changing, evolving or devolving. God’s revelation says every good thing (which includes logic) comes from the Triune God (James 1:17, Romans 11:36).
Buddhism also cannot provide a justification for the existence of the self. We live our lives presupposing our existence and have knowledge of it, but Buddhism denies the existence of the soul and teaches that personal self is an illusion (See: Walpola Rahula, “What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada” [Grove Press, 2007] Kindle Edition, Chapter 6). There is no “I” or “you” even now. Since Buddhism teaches the personal self is an illusion, then this would mean that the validity of one’s reasoning and meanings behind words are illusions as well.
Buddhism & Moral Absolutes: Buddhism also cannot account for ethics since Buddhism teaches that there is no moral right and wrong, it’s all illusory (See: “The Teaching of Buddha” [Bukkyo Dendo Kyoki, 1996] 62). However this contradicts valid human experience, as we do not live our lives as if morals are subjective. When on the news we hear about a brutal murder, child molestation or some other heinous act, we don’t say “although this seems wrong it’s just an illusion.” No, we indignantly object to the act and demand that justice ought to be done. Buddhism is somewhat atheistic and hence it does not give us a basis for where objective, moral absolutes come from. Lastly, Buddhism has no personal absolute which is needed to account for the obligation men feel to abide by moral absolutes.
Buddhism & Laws of Logic: Buddhism denies the existence of the soul while also teaching reincarnation. This is an internal contradiction. What is reincarnated? Thus, by breaking laws of logic it fails as a precondition for laws of logic. Moreover, Buddhism teaches reality is just an illusion. If a world view claims reality (which would include laws of logic) is just an illusion then the laws of logic do not exist and can’t be accounted for by such a world view. Lastly, Buddhism has no absolute diversity and unity which is needed to account for the diversity in unity of the absolute set of laws of logic.
Buddhism & Objective Truth: Buddhism teaches that knowledge comes from out and within.
“Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real” – Gautama Buddha
Buddha teaches that truth is relative and you have to find out for yourself what is truth. But if truth is up to the individual then any claims that refutes the worldview of Buddhism could not be wrong. If you believe like Buddha that truth is subjective then is it absolutely true that truth is subjective? Claiming that truth is subjective is making an absolute truth claim. Buddhism refutes itself.
So based on the Buddhist worldview, any arguments a Buddhist presents would ultimately be meaningless since they are simply illusions, thus any arguments for Buddhism ought to be rejected on its own terms. Buddhists are living by blind faith. Christians have a justification for us having knowledge of our existence since God’s revelation says we were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).
At the end of the day, there’s no good reason to be a Buddhist at the point since it cannot justify the entire web of the preconditions for intelligibility which are so fundamental in making sense of our day to day life.
Islam: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:
In order for Islam to be the true worldview or religion it has to be able to provide a justification for the ENTIRE WEB of preconditions of intelligibility since these preconditions operate together in unity and are so fundamental and necessary for human intelligible experience. The preconditions of intelligibility are:
1 Laws of logic
2 Existence of Truth
3. Meanings Behind Words
4. The One and the Many / Diversity & Unity
6. Uniformity of nature
7. Reliability of the senses
8. Validity of reasoning
9. Existence of the self
If Islam cannot justify at least one of these preconditions then it cannot justify the rest of the preconditions. The whole web would fall apart, which means that Islam cannot be true.
Islam & Moral Absolutes: The precondition for the obligation we all feel to be moral must be both absolute and personal since morals are absolute and obligation to be moral only makes sense in interpersonal relationships. Thus, a personal, absolute being is required. The Islamic god, Allah, however is not truly personal. While the members of the Christian Trinity enjoyed eternal communion and relationship (meaning they have been eternally personal), the Islamic god is Unitarian and has not had relationship for eternity. Therefore, Allah fails as the truly personal precondition of the obligation we all feel to be moral. Hence, unlike YHWH, we are left with an impersonal god in Islam who fails to be the absolute and truly personal precondition to make sense of the obligation we all feel to be moral.
Islam & the Laws of Logic: In order for the Islamic god to qualify as the eternally logical precondition who accounts for the laws of logic, he (and his alleged divine book), must show themselves to be logical. If they violate the laws of logic through irreconcilable contradiction then they violate the law of non-contradiction and show Allah is not the source of the laws of logic upon which his nature is based. Do the “infallible” religious texts of Islam have irreconcilable contradictions? Consider how on the one hand the Koran and “inspired prophet” Muhammad affirm the validity of the Old and New Testament’s of the Bible (Koran 4:136; 7:157; Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4434; Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, [Oxford University Press, 1995]), while on the other hand it contradicts the Bible’s clear teachings on original sin, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, justification being by faith, the deity of Jesus etc. Another contradiction is that while Koran 88:6 says the only food for those in hell will be bitter dari, Koran 69:36 says the only food for the wicked in hell will be pus from their wounds. Since the Koran (which is allegedly from Allah) violates the law of non-contradiction, this means the false Islamic god’s nature is not logical and hence he is not the source of the laws of logic.
Muslims believe in a unitarian god known as Allah and believes the Quran is the word of God. If Allah is the basis for the laws of logic then he must show himself to be logical. In the Quran, the word of Allah mistakenly made a strawman fallacy on the view of the Trinity by claiming that Christians worship three gods (See: Surah 4:171; 5:73). It also makes the strawman that Christians believe Mary is a god and is a member of the Trinity (See: Surah 5:116; 5:17; Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 4:171). Since committing a strawman fallacy is a violation of the laws of logic, Allah cannot be the source of the laws of logic. And since Islam can’t account for the laws of logic, Islam have torn the entire web of preconditions of intelligibility, which means the entire Islamic faith is destroyed. This is how serious and devastating these preconditions are.
Even even if a Muslim tries to slither around this issue they still have a problem. Allah is only a unitarian god, so his nature is unity alone. Laws of logic presupposes the existence of diversity and unity, which is another precondition. Ex. There are different laws of logic (diversity) but they are all interdependent as one (unity). The reality of diversity and unity are eternal. You cannot have unity without diversity or diversity without unity. Allah cannot be the basis for the eternality of diversity and unity since Allah’s nature is only unity.
Islam & the Possibility of Knowledge: The Koran and hadith literature, upon which the Islamic world view is based, are not texts which offer relevant epistemic, philosophical discourses. The Bible on the other hand, does. Instead, what is contained in the Koran are merely 114 chapters of petty stories, warnings to obey Allah and Muhammad and a skewed Islamized version of history. The hadith literature contains the actions of Muhammad as well as his extra-Koranic sayings, yet no hadith even deals with the issue of the justification of knowledge through “Allah.” Since these many volumes of sources do not even touch on this issue (though they make sure to cover all they can, including answering how many rocks a Muslim should use to clean himself after going to the bathroom), we can be confident the author of these sources did not have a justification for knowledge.
Only the Trinity can account for this. This means it is logically impossible for Allah to exist.
Allah also cannot account for ethics, since ethics assumes interpersonal relationships. While the members of the Christian Trinity had eternal communion and interpersonal relationships, Allah is a unitarian god and has not had interpersonal relationships for eternity.
This is clear evidence that the Islamic faith is reduced to absurdity and that Muhammad tried to limit God to his own understanding, not realizing that by limiting God to his own understanding, the preconditions of intelligibility (that are so fundamental) poses a serious problem to the whole of Islam.
Judaism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:
Judaism, the Laws of Logic & Moral Absolutes: If Judaism is true then that means the God of Judaism lied when he said the Messiah would come before the destruction of the Second Temple (Daniel 9:26) which occurred in A.D. 70. If the God of Judaism is a liar then he contradicted himself since he stated he does not lie (Numbers 23:19). If he contradicted himself then he violated the law of non-contradiction and thus his nature is not logical and the laws of logic cannot be grounded in his eternal nature. Moreover, if he is a liar (an immoral characteristic) then moral absolutes are not based on his eternal nature. Thus, he fails as the source for moral absolutes. Moreover, since those who believe in Judaism affirm Unitarianism, this world view suffers from the same difficulty Islam does. That is, the God of Judaism is not truly personal. While the members of the Christian Trinity enjoyed eternal communion and relationship (meaning they are truly personal), the God of Judaism is Unitarian and has not had relationship for eternity. Therefore, the God of Judaism fails as the truly personal precondition for the obligation we all feel to be moral. Moreover, if the God of Judaism is not personal or triune, one can also conclude that he is not love in nature since love requires at least a second person for it to express itself.
Deism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:
Deism & the Uniformity of Nature: Deism suffers from the same difficulty as Orthodox Judaism. That is, there is a god who set the world on its course and then withdrew from it. However, again, due to the nature of the world’s utterly complex uniformity (which was unknown to the founders of deism in the 17th century), a totally sovereign God is required to sustain the movement of atoms, the moving parts in atoms (i.e., electrons), as well as the movement and vibrations of particles in gasses, liquids and solids. Due to Deism’s absence of providence, it fails as a valid precondition to make human experience on this issue intelligible. Moreover, Deism does not explain why all men assume day-to-day that nature will be uniform.
Deism & Moral Absolutes: If a god created the world and then withdrew from it then the fact men know right from wrong is inexplicable. If the deistic god does not write the works of his law on the hearts of men at their birth (since he is not around) then man’s knowledge of good and evil is unaccounted for.
Deism & Knowledge: Deism can not account for the fact that all men know God exists from birth, being the basis for trusting in their mental faculties and a non-chaotic universe as being able to bring them to true knowledge. One Deist source says “Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason. . .” However, people assume God in order to reason and come to knowledge. Deism has it backwards. People do not reason in order to come to the conclusion that God exists. Knowledge of God is innate. This proves Deism fails as the precondition for knowledge.
Deism & Human Dignity: Deism fails to explain why men attribute dignity or value to other men the way they do. In Deism men are not in a god’s image, nor are they viewed by all men as being accountable and owned by a god. Thus, Deism does not account for humans attributing dignity and value to other humans.
Mormonism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:
Mormonism & Moral Absolutes: The Mormon god is an exalted man of flesh and blood (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). He is not eternal, nor is he absolute. Thus, he fails as the absolute personal, precondition for the obligation men feel to be moral.
Mormonism & Laws of Logic: Since the Mormon god is not eternal, and has not always been the supreme being of the universe (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) that means he can’t account for invariant (i.e., unchanging) laws of logic. If they are not based on an unchanging eternal nature, their invariance today is inexplicable. Mormonism teaches polytheism: the belief in many gods. But there cannot be a single laws of logic if there is more than one god. Thus, Mormonism fails for the preconditions of laws of logic.
Jehovah Witnesses: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:
Jehovah’s Witnesses & Moral Absolutes: Since this cult denies the Trinity, their god is not truly personal. Moreover, since those who believe in Jehovah’s Witness Religion affirm Unitarianism, this world view suffers from the same difficulty Islam does. That is, the god of this cult is not truly personal and cannot account for interpersonal relationships. While the members of the Christian Trinity enjoyed eternal communion and interpersonal relationship, the god of Jehovah’s Witnesses is Unitarian and has not had relationship for eternity. He cannot relate to humanity in a truly personal manner because there is no such interpersonal relationship within his own absolute essence. Thus, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a truly personal God required to account for the obligation all men feel to abide by absolute morality.
Jehovah’s Witnesses & Laws of Logic: Since this cult believes in a unitarian god, their god is unity only. Therefore the god of Jehovah’s Witnesses fails to account for the diversity in unity of laws of logic (3 in 1) since diversity in unity is not based on his nature. According to the god of Jehovah’s witnesses, the Watchtower Society takes the role of “the prophet of God” (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197). However, the Watchtower claimed 1925 would be the end of the world (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106). The Watchtower then admitted its organization was wrong and 1925 was based on the inflated imaginations of Watchtower Society members (Watchtower, 1926, p. 232). This is a serious contradiction. Either the Watchtower is a true prophet and makes true prophecy, or it is a false prophet and makes false prophecy. Since this world view violates the laws of logic, it fails as a precondition for the laws of logic to be true. How can their god inspire prophets to make false prophecy violating the law of non-contradiction, if the laws of logic are based on his eternal unchanging nature?
Greek Polytheistic Paganism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:
Greek Polytheistic Paganism & Moral Absolutes: Although gods in paganism can be personal, none of them are absolute. They all have different responsibilities and roles in regards to the world. Thus, paganism fails to provide a personal and absolute source required to make sense of the obligation men feel to abide by moral absolutes. Zeus, the so-called father of gods and humans, for example is said to be finite and had a birth. He is not said to be in absolute control of everything. This critique can also be leveled against animism, other forms of Hinduism, ancient Roman paganism, Shinto, and ancient Egyptian polytheism. Moreover, the gods of Greek paganism were extremely immoral according to Aristides (Aristides, Apol. 13.8). They engaged in theft, adultery, and homosexuality etc. Thus, absolute morality can not be based on their natures.
Greek Polytheistic Paganism & Laws of Logic: In Greek Paganism the Dioscuri brothers (twin gods) were honored and exalted as moral helpers of mankind. Yet they were beings who were said to have ravished the already married daughters of Leucippus. This is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction in Greek paganism. Either they are moral, noble and exalted helpers of mankind who deserve respect, or they are not since they are rapists of already married females. If a world view violates the laws of logic it can not be the basis for the laws of logic. Even if an individual tries to find a “correct” answer to this, they still have a problem. The fact that no gods in greek polytheistic paganism are absolute and that polytheistic gods are diversity only, they cannot account for the Diversity in Unity of the absolute laws of logic. Also like I’ve said before, there cannot be a single set of laws of logic if there’s more than one god. Thus Paganism fails to provide for the preconditions for the laws of logic and all other aspects of reality.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster! When the atheist worldview is reduced to absurdity and shown to not account for valid human experience, the atheist often says: “Although you say Christianity accounts for reality, I can just as easily say green aliens from Mars, or Santa Claus account for it.” However, green aliens from Mars being the source of the universe is not an actual worldview. Second, if the atheist wants to posit green aliens from Mars as the valid precondition for intelligibility, he needs to actually tell us about this worldview in depth. He needs to explain this world view’s anthropology, epistemology, view of creation etc., in order that we can test it internally and see if it accounts for reality. Atheists always fail to do this when raising this argument. Thus, their argument does not have any actual force. Moreover, even if they did invent and fully explain such an imaginary worldview, the fact that they do not actually believe it but are just raising it to try to stump Christians shows it is not a meaningful worldview to consider. Christianity has actually been affirmed and believed for 2000 years and is not some off the cuff response to a transcendental argument.
Michael R. Butler offers a refutation of this objection: Suppose a basketball player, say Michael Jordan, beats every worthy opponent in one-on-one basketball games. He can justifiably claim to be the best individual basketball player in the world. Suppose further that another jealous (and peevish) basketball player who was previously trounced by Jordan resents that he (Jordan) has titled himself ‘the best player in the world.’ His comeback is, ‘just because you have beat every current player does not mean that there is not another one coming who is better than you.’ Jordan’s response can be anticipated; ‘bring on my next opponent.’ The theoretical possibility that there may be another player better than Jordan is not a concern to him. In the world of basketball, it is the one who is actually the best player, and not who is possibly the best player, that is of importance. What matters are actual worldviews, not possible worldviews.
Christianity provides for the preconditions for intelligibility:
Christianity & Moral Absolutes: Christianity accounts for moral absolutes since morals are based on God’s eternal nature or character (Lev. 19:1-2; 1 Peter 1:16). It also accounts for why men know right from wrong and live and speak as though morality is absolute even though atheism cannot justify such behavior. This is because God writes the works of His Law on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15), though men do rebel and suppress or distort their knowledge of good and evil at times. God is the absolute and personal (God must be triune in order to be personal, communicative, and love in nature) Creator who is responsible for the personal obligation men feel to abide by moral absolutes. Christian theism accounts for why we feel and live as though humans have dignity or value since it affirms all men know God (Psalms 19:1; Romans 1:17-23), that men are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), and that they belong to God and are accountable to God Proverbs 16:4; Romans 11:36; Revelation 4:11.
Christianity & the Laws of Logic: Christianity accounts for the immaterial nature of the laws of logic since we do not claim all that exists in the universe is matter, and by noting they are unchanging, eternal expressions of the attributes of the unchanging (2 Timothy 2:13), eternal God, and a reflection of His thinking. This is deduced from the fact that all knowledge and wisdom comes from God (Prov. 1:7; 9:10; Col. 2:3). The Bible affirms God does not contradict Himself (2 Corinthians 1:18) and it is impossible for Him to lie (Hebrews 6:18). This is because the law of non-contradiction is part of His nature. Scripture affirms the laws of logic which reflect God’s nature Exodus 3:14; Matthew 12:30; Luke 6:43.
Christianity & our reasoning/senses, and the possibility of knowledge: Christianity explains why we all assume reason is a valid tool since we all know the God who provided us with a logical, orderly universe where trusting the mental activities in our head actually makes sense (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). It accounts for our trust in empirical learning by explaining all men know the God (Psalms 19:1; Romans 1:17-23) who created men to know things through observation (Exodus 4:11; Proverbs 20:12), and that all men trust in God to sustain the viability of the senses. Lastly, it accounts for the possibility of knowledge by noting all men know God (Psalms 19:1; Romans 1:17-23), provided us with and sustains our universe (Genesis 8:22; Psalms 103:19; 104:2; Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 31:35; Amos 8:9) which is conducive for knowledge (i.e., an orderly, guided, non-chaotic, rational universe where probability and possibility, which are required for knowledge, actually make sense). This is why Proverbs 1:7 and Colossians 2:3 affirm one must start with God in order to account for knowledge. As scripture says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). “[I]n whom [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). As Charles Hodge once said, “All that the scriptures teach concerning the external world accords with the facts of experience.”
Some Questions on Laws of Logic:
Question: How does this world have one set of laws of logic. Every human experiences every situation in a million different ways and come up with a million different solutions. Nature is different no matter where u go on earth. All cultures live different lives with different beliefs, and most members of most society’s are subjectively happy. What are these set rules of nature? And how what is your internal logic for all the hypocrisy in the bible, I am not hating on christianity but u all most see the many flaws in it?
Answer: If there is more than one set of laws of logic then communication would be impossible and truth would reduce to relativistic preferences. Laws of logic are objective and aren’t dependent upon the human mind. If you study logic you’d know there’s only one law of non-contradiction (one of the laws of logic) that exist, not millions or billions of laws of non-contradiction. Biblical revelation is true due to the impossibility of the contrary. Without it you can’t make sense of anything, including logic and induction.
Question: How would you defend it against polytheistic religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism?
Answer: Easy. Polytheistic gods can’t account for both the diversity and unity of the preconditions for intelligibility, since polytheistic gods are diversity only. They don’t have a universal nature to account for universal things like induction, morals, and logic. Also if there’s more than one god then there would be many sets of laws of logic, which is absurd. Who’s logic should we follow? In our reality we only have one set of laws of logic, which shows that polytheism is false.
John 14:6: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
God bless you all!
Soli Deo Gloria!!
If you don’t presuppose the God of Christianity as your ultimate starting point, you have no foundation for the paradigm of preconditions that are necessary for human intelligible experience. In the end it’s either Jesus Christ or absurdity.