I’ve been talking with my best friend Kamper about God lately, and the transcendental argument came up. If you’re not familiar with it, our good friend Matt Slick will explain it for you. Basically, the argument attempts to put forth the existence of logic as requiring a God. This is my (quick) refutation of that argument.
Firstly and most importantly, Slick either fails to realize, or deliberately ignores the fact that he’s talking about two different things. He means to say that logic is a set of rules that our universe follows (causality, truth, the basic physical principles of existence) and that logic is a type of model that humans make to reason about the world.
Slick’s argument hinges on the presupposition that if you have only two presuppositional worldviews, and one of them isn’t about to account for logic, then the other one has to be true. But this is not necessarily true. He has not established that God is a necessary precondition for the existence of logic.
Formal logic is descriptive – it’s a model made by humans to describe the universe. All of physics is observer-independent. Logic is just something that models the external reality that we experience through our senses. If the question goes a bit deeper and asks why logic / truth exists at all, then I maintain that it is a property of existence. Slick tries to make the argument that if the universe didn’t exist, logical absolutes would still be around. But they wouldn’t, because they would have nothing to apply to. If nothing exists, descriptive terms about the nothingness would be completely meaningless.
Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, Slick commits a fallacy of equivocation – that two things of separate value are the same thing. For instance, it is true that the conceptual statement “A banana = a banana” cannot be photographed, frozen, measured, whatever. It is an abstract statement. However, the semantic statement refers to the physical nature of things that do exist and are material and absolutely contingent on physical existence. There are really two separate aspects of logical absolutes to consider, not one. When Slick says that logical absolutes are not dependent on the material world, he’s equating the conceptual semantic statement (“A banana = a banana”) and the physical underpinning of that statement to be the same thing, and then goes on to argue that the logical absolutes are only conceptual and therefore dependent on a mind – but they are not the same thing. The logical absolutes aren’t prescriptive conceptual statements about what logic is and isn’t. They’re descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe, on which we then base the rules of formal logic.
The final conclusion of Slick’s argument is also fallacious. Even ignoring all the fallacies up to this point, and accepting the false premise that logical absolutes are purely conceptual, the final conclusion is a still a case of special pleading. The fact that human minds are capable of conceiving of the logical absolutes to make this argument shows that the concepts are not dependent on an absolutely perfect supreme transcendent mind. Even ignoring all that, God needn’t necessarily exist for any longer than is necessary to create logic, or even exist within the timeframe of our universe, or be a personal God concerned with humans, or whathaveyou. Maybe God created logic and then promptly died from exhaustion, or retired to the Bahamas to sip Mimosas.
So, to answer where logic comes from, logic as in “truth and causality” is a property of the existence of a material universe. Logic as in “formal logic” is a descriptive framework for how we perceive the universe through our senses. There is no reason to conclude personal authorship.
Exit, stage left.
Sparks
So, to answer where logic comes from, logic as in “truth and causality” is a property of the existence of a material universe.
In a universe where everything is predicated upon prior causes, is it logical to conclude that one particular thing (ie existence popping into being) did not require a cause?
disclosure, i didn’t read Slick’s piece, nor did I really read your piece. I just saw the last part and wanted to tort.
The best answer I have for your question is “I don’t know”. Obviously there’s a problem of infinite regress. I’ve heard some get around the problem by pointing out that the concept of time before creation of the universe is meaningless, since time and space are linked, and the universe was essentially a point (in the geometrical sense) before the Big Bang. Do whatever you like with that explanation.
But you have the infinite regress problem with God, too. Or anything.
No, God is supernatural. Natural phenomena require causes. Supernatural beings do not.
So, you’re applying for a Get Out of Logical Jail Free card for God. Why should we? What evidence do you have that it should be so?
That’s special pleading, and logically inconsistent.
I’m typing this reply from a church in Princeton, Minnesota. I feel so subversive.