Human Convention Objection to Reason Argument For God | Logical Faith Part 11 #god #apologetics

Full Video: Reason (Laws of Logic) Argument For God | Logical Faith Part 11

Reason Argument2: (1) The laws of logic are immaterial, exist outside our minds, and are required for human reasoning; (2) If human reason came from non-reason (non-rational laws of physics), it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason; (3) So human reason must come from a source outside of nature that is itself rational; (4) Therefore, materialism/naturalism is false; (5) An eternal, self-existent, rational Being who is the ultimate source of human reason is the best explanation. This Being we call God.

References: Geisler, Norman. Christian Apologetics. 2nd ed., BakerAcademic, 2013.
Turek, Frank. Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case. NavPress, 2015.

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the copyright act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Please contact me if you have any valid copyright issue with my video and would like for it to be taken down.

[batteryacids]

1. “The laws of logic are immaterial and exist outside our minds and are required for [sound] human reasoning.” {I agree with this premise given the added qualifier, logic is immaterial in the same way math is immaterial, meaning, not made of material (conceptual not physical).}

2. “If [sound] human reasoning came from non-reason, it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason.” {Sound human reasoning comes from the laws of logic, which are reasonable, so no issue there. If human reasoning wasn’t based on logic then it wouldn’t be sound so I agree with this premise as well.}

3. “So [sound] human reason must come from outside of nature that is itself rational.”{We’ve established human reasoning as coming from the laws of logic in the first premise, which are rational. However I’m unsure why we’ve thrown in that it necessarily has to come from outside nature as this hasn’t been demonstrated in either of the previous premises. The laws of logic are not supernatural and are descriptive not prescriptive. For example, Math is also immaterial, is true no matter who or where or when you are, and is a great tool for sound human reasoning as well; if I have 5 apples and have to feed myself and 4 other people, I will have enough apples for everyone to have one (this is sound). Yet math isn’t “outside of nature” it’s a description OF nature, the same is true with the laws of logic. No one had to decree or command or prescribe that “A” can’t equal “Not A”, it’s just the way nature is and the law of non-contradiction (2nd law of logic), “A cannot equal not A” doesn’t come from outside nature, it’s a description of nature itself.}

- Therefore materialism is false and the best explanation is a rational, self existent being which is God. {No, this conclusion does not follow from the previous premises. We did not demonstrate the supernatural therefore establishing materialism as false, we did not establish the need for a “self existent being” for the facts of reality that the concepts of logic describe to exist. We atheists get this one all the time. It’s usually stated as follows, “laws require a law maker/giver” and has been put forward for the laws of logic, the fundamental laws of science, the fundamental constants etc. The flaw in this line of thinking is that these sets of laws are descriptive, not prescriptive as I explained before. The assertion is that a being had to come in and say “light will not exceed this speed” in order for there to be a limit. However, this has not been demonstrated to be the case.}

The laws of logic themselves do only exist in human minds as concepts, but they describe real facts of nature that don’t. For example, the 1st law logic, (the law of identity) was invented by people, yet, regardless of whether people are around or not, A will always be A. You use math to explain this so I’ll do the same again here, 2+2 has always equaled 4 and will always equal 4 whether humans are around or not BUT the concepts of 2 and 4 and equals were invented by humans and only exist in our minds. Regardless, it’s a fact that you’ll always have 4 things when grouping 2 sets of 2 things no matter how it’s described or who is or isn’t around to do the math. Made up numbers and symbols that describe real facts of nature.

So where do those facts come from? Where does the fact itself that the concept of the 2nd law of logic is describing come from? Why does A=A and not A=NotA? Well, it’s exactly the same as asking, “Why is a circle a circle and not a square?” The answer to me seems pretty simple, “because it’s a circle, otherwise, it would be a square“. The answer, “Because God made it that way” is wholly unnecessary. So, why are things the way they are and not something different? Because that’s how they are. If they were different, they would be different, and not the way they are. It’s funny to see how, with the circle and square, this answer seems intuitive and trivial and the question itself seems silly. Yet, you apply the exact same thing to a logical concept and all of the sudden it’s a profound question that demands an equally profound answer. It’s not and it doesn’t, A=A (1st Law) because if A≠A, then A would not be A, it would be something different (2nd Law). “Because God made it that way” is still wholly unnecessary.