A Rebuke to Hitches The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic
Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic? I think not. But, the Christian world view can. The Christian worldview states that God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc. Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles). Is this logically defensible?
I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview. I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God exists, but I think that it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God.
This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen.
How does a Christian account for the laws of logic? The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth. Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God. God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too. Man, being made in Gods image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them. Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them. Nevertheless, the atheist might say that in his answer is too simplistic and too convenient. It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself. Examples of the laws of logic Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature. Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be its self and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense. Law of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus the statement "A statement is either true or false" is either true or false. How does the atheist account for the laws of logic? If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote." The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory. If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe. We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions. For example, we do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time. Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought. Or, where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist? You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how can any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all? The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth. In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind. We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing. If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations. If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. Atheists will use logic to try and disprove Gods existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God who is Himself absolute. But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God. So, we ask, "How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy and motion?" In other words, "How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?" Conclusion The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute. The are absolute because there is an absolute God. The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY Home | Contact | Newsletter | Publications | Online Schools Support CARM | Copying and Linking | Report an error Statement of Faith | Theology Quiz Copyright Matthew J. Slick, 1995 - 2008
Entropy and Causality used as a proof for God's existence The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.
The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning. Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size. All events have causes. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old. We've already established the universe cannot be infinitely old. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist. An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause. This uncaused cause is supernatural. By supernatural is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning. This means that God is uncaused. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY Home | Contact | Newsletter | Publications | Online Schools Support CARM | Copying and Linking | Report an error Statement of Faith | Theology Quiz Copyright Matthew J. Slick, 1995 - 2008
View CARM Site Stats SUBSCRIBE TO THE CARM NEWSLETTER
"Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be its self and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense"
God IS contradiction. An omnipotent God would be a God who could both exist and not exist simultaneously, which would be contradictory, and also necessary for Him/Her to create existence - since a creator must exist to create but also not exist in order to bring existence into being. Yet God's nature is reflected in the law of contradiction? Then his nature rules himself out of his own existence; for "Something cannot be its self and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense"
"Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic? I think not."
The atheist doesn't pretend to know everything about the world at any given moment. The atheist learns about the world through science: systematic observation through sense perception. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to produce an account of how his own worldview accounts for what goes on in the universe, since his worldview stems from scientific discovery and does not make claims as to how everything has originated - only educated guesses. What is not known now to the atheist is not even a criticism of atheism - it merely means that there is more yet to discover by and for the atheist.
The burden of proof is on the religious who make claims of absolute, unshakeable, infallible truth. The atheist merely systematically discovers the world and then attempts to reason what he cannot measure. Should he be wrong, he admits and accepts the evidence that proves him so. The same cannot be said for the religious, who are proven time and time again to be utterly and woefully wrong through the advancement of science. Their entire worldview rests on the case that they be 100% correct on EVERYTHING they claim. Therefore, they carry the burden of proof.
4 comments:
A Rebuke to Hitches
The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview,
and Logic
Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic? I think not. But, the Christian world view can. The Christian worldview states that God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc. Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles). Is this logically defensible?
I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview. I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God exists, but I think that it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God.
This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen.
How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.
Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.
Man, being made in Gods image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them.
Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.
Nevertheless, the atheist might say that in his answer is too simplistic and too convenient. It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.
Examples of the laws of logic
Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be its self and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense.
Law of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus the statement "A statement is either true or false" is either true or false.
How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?
If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote."
The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.
For example, we do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time.
Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.
Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.
Or, where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how can any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all?
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind.
We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
Atheists will use logic to try and disprove Gods existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.
The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God who is Himself absolute.
But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God.
So, we ask, "How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy and motion?"
In other words, "How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?"
Conclusion
The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
The are absolute because there is an absolute God.
The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Atheism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY
Home | Contact | Newsletter | Publications | Online Schools
Support CARM | Copying and Linking | Report an error
Statement of Faith | Theology Quiz
Copyright Matthew J. Slick, 1995 - 2008
A Second Rebuke to Hitchens:
Entropy and Causality used as
a proof for God's existence
The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.
The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size.
All events have causes.
There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
We've already established the universe cannot be infinitely old.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.
Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.
This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.
This uncaused cause is supernatural.
By supernatural is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it.
This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.
The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
This means that God is uncaused.
Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Atheism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY
Home | Contact | Newsletter | Publications | Online Schools
Support CARM | Copying and Linking | Report an error
Statement of Faith | Theology Quiz
Copyright Matthew J. Slick, 1995 - 2008
View CARM Site Stats
SUBSCRIBE TO THE CARM NEWSLETTER
"Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be its self and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense"
God IS contradiction. An omnipotent God would be a God who could both exist and not exist simultaneously, which would be contradictory, and also necessary for Him/Her to create existence - since a creator must exist to create but also not exist in order to bring existence into being. Yet God's nature is reflected in the law of contradiction? Then his nature rules himself out of his own existence; for "Something cannot be its self and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense"
"Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic? I think not."
The atheist doesn't pretend to know everything about the world at any given moment. The atheist learns about the world through science: systematic observation through sense perception. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to produce an account of how his own worldview accounts for what goes on in the universe, since his worldview stems from scientific discovery and does not make claims as to how everything has originated - only educated guesses. What is not known now to the atheist is not even a criticism of atheism - it merely means that there is more yet to discover by and for the atheist.
The burden of proof is on the religious who make claims of absolute, unshakeable, infallible truth. The atheist merely systematically discovers the world and then attempts to reason what he cannot measure. Should he be wrong, he admits and accepts the evidence that proves him so. The same cannot be said for the religious, who are proven time and time again to be utterly and woefully wrong through the advancement of science. Their entire worldview rests on the case that they be 100% correct on EVERYTHING they claim. Therefore, they carry the burden of proof.
Post a Comment