| Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Lord of Non-Contradiction (a new argument); An Argument for God from Logic | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 19 2012, 02:48 AM (692 Views) | |
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 19 2012, 02:48 AM Post #1 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
James N. Anderson and Greg Welty purport to have developed a new argument for the existence of God. They lay out the argument in the paper titled: The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God From Logic (pdf) I haven't read it yet, but I will very soon. Until then, check it out. I suppose we can critique it together. Or, someone can read it and tell me about it, then I can act like an expert! Or, whatever. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 19 2012, 05:05 AM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
Ugh. I went to the last page to see how long it is (22 pages) and saw and I figured the rest is full of equally inane sophistry (I know, the fact that you can also snicker about that "ultimate irony" which those elite atheists miss (probably communist University professors, they think they're so smart) makes it harder to not love that line). Maybe later. |
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 19 2012, 04:19 PM Post #3 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
It doesn't. And the quote, in context, is pointing out a point of argumentation. The conclusion of the paper, in nuce Ilias, is that the laws of logic imply God and use of the laws presuppose God. Applied to the quote you pulled from the conclusion: If the argument in the paper stands, then the irony should be evident (that the anti-theist argument ultimately presupposes God in using the laws of logic to argue at all). |
![]() |
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 19 2012, 06:21 PM Post #4 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
OK, so what I gather is that this argument is similar to the Moral Argument for God's Existence, except applied to the Laws of Logic instead of Objective Morality. Sort of taking Bahnsen's "impossibility of the contrary" and walking it out. If upheld, this could be a good argument for use in the evidential approach (similar to how Craig uses the Moral Argument in debate) and as support to the presuppositional approach (similar to the way that White uses the Moral Argument in debate)*. I'm sure that expansion and debate will follow if this ever gets on the scholastic philosophy radar, but, here are the basic premises and conclusion: The laws of logic are necessary truths about truths; they are necessarily true propositions. Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. If there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind. If there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person. A necessarily existent person must be spiritual in nature, because no physical entity exists necessarily. Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. Therefore, the laws of logic imply the existence of God. *both the presuppositional and evidential approaches use of the argument similarly, at its base "Atheists are moral creatures, but cannot account for objective morality." |
![]() |
|
| Pastoral Musings | Feb 19 2012, 06:55 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Fundy
|
It sounds sort of like a transcendental argument. I'll have to try to read it tomorrow. |
![]() |
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 19 2012, 07:06 PM Post #6 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
It's close. |
![]() |
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 19 2012, 10:28 PM Post #7 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
But different. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 20 2012, 04:50 PM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
Here is the conclusion: It seems to me that they are playing loose with the terms "law" and "necessarily" and the logical jump in step eight "since we are physical and the laws of logic non-physical, there must be a non-physical source (God) for the Laws of logic" is a non sequitur even if you accept the steps leading up to it (which I kinda don't). The fudging in the last sentence "The Laws of logic imply the existence of God" belies the point of all this being they have "proved" the existence of God and all those inferences at the end are true of necessity. The titter at being able to say "those elitists miss the irony that one can logically argue against God only if God exists" turns out to be as specious as I thought. |
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 20 2012, 06:25 PM Post #9 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
How so? I don't think that that is what was said. If implied, I missed it. Fudging? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 20 2012, 08:35 PM Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
I am not sure one can talk of the "Laws of Logic" like they do: A set of governing Laws ruling Logic (I think they are attempting to talk about them as if they are like "Laws of Physics"). They then say things like "this necessarily follows ..." which, especially since the conclusion is really an "implication", overstates their case. Step eight brings God in. All the stuff "necessary" about the "Laws" now gets God inserted; abrupt and neither necessary nor a law. Fudge. At the conclusion of all which is necessary about the Laws, and before the inferences which follow of necessity they say that this all "implies" God (I know I emphasized "imply" in my quote of their statement). But really, imply is not so much a fudge as a real statement of what they did in the article (and I don't believe they did it well. By Laws of Logic you don't just assert something as a brute fact as part of the proof of its existence). What made it a fudge is that they kinda were forced in that conclusion to admit it. The rest of the article is overstatement. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Apologetics · Next Topic » |







12:20 AM Jul 11