Laws of Logic Prove the Existence of God!

I talk about how the Laws of Logic prove the existence of God.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Shoutouts to all of my Financiers:
Robert
Sean
Larry
Andy
Payton
"Giga Chad"
Quinn
Shaun
Bryan
Marko
Diet Sodalite
Alisson
Eddie
Node
Maximus
Vlad
Cary
Mike
Nektarios
Floodedbasement
Dave
Seraphim
Norbert

BTC wallet if you want to donate in BTC: bc1q7lszxzfwv2vmsfyx24kzpjhpyyrzse374hhp44

[bellingdog]

Hi David, Søren Kierkegaard talks about this, and he basically says there are 2 paths - faith and logic - and we must choose a path, but whatever path we choose, we choose because we started from the perspective of that path, ie, if you choose logic, and someone asks you why, you will use logic to explain why you chose that. If you choose faith, and someone asks you to explain why, you will use your faith to explain why.
All in all, Kierkegaard says Abraham's obedience of God to sacrifice Isaac (only to be stopped at the very last moment) is not logical, but he is the father of faith, and from a perspective of faith it makes perfect sense.

[jonmack]

I’m gonna have to watch this a few times. My brain starts to break every 3 mins

[Whatsisface]

Where this goes wrong is in thinking that for the Laws of Logic to necessarily exist, they must necessarily exist in the mind of a necessary personal existence. This is somewhat vague and misunderstands what the Laws of Logic are about. The reason the Laws of Logic necessarily pertain is that they describe a state of affairs that can't be other than what they are. For example, The Law of Identity states that A=A, a thing is what it is. The reason this is an absolute truth is that it's impossible for something to be not what it is. We realise this and formulate it with A=A.

[Rudxain]

4:55 one could argue that there exists such a universe/reality where logic doesn't apply, and that would be an *infinitely chaotical* reality. The mere act of describing such thing doesn't imply it's logical. I could say there's a universe where 3-sided squares exist.

However, one could argue that the only chaotic thing about such reality are its physical laws (or the lack thereof), and that "logic indirectly governs that reality". But that's a weak statement. What do we mean by "indirectly govern"?

[WoodchuckNorris.o]

Wow I didn't know St John of Damascus did presup!

[davsamp]

Everything about Logic itself seems to be thus far correct, although one can doubt the notion of The laws of Logic being concepts residing in Minds, as what the mind thinks of is that, of which the thoughts of the laws are Just Representations.
Albight that, many problems arise in the Last chapter, where a full-load of presuppositions gets to enter the Argument.
A mind is firstly nothing correlated to Personhood, as a Computer as as much a mind and Possibly a more effective one, then any human or other Lifeform in earth.
That, to which the laws of Logic refer is in no mind, Like thoughts and Emotions, for they are a Universal structure and Always presupposed by anything, and therefore also a mind, for there is No mind, where those laws dont aplie. And even If there where such a mind, IT would never be Personal, as that, what might be called meaningfully a Person, Is a complex and late-development Thing, which is also dependent on relative perspective to the other, which the Universal Lack totally.
After all, many mentioned Terms are very vague, Like mind, Person etc.
Furthermore, the notion of contingency can be very misleading, as it follows for example from the existence of Just one Thing necessary in a Chain, that the entire Chain is necessary and Nothing in and about it Contingent. This aplies logically also in the reversed way, that when Just one contingency is Part of a Chain, all of it would be. But as one might suggest, that the second Option is Impossible, contingency itself is Impossible, at least in a ontological Sense. Logically, one can speak of contingency when one Refers to Something non-analytical. An Analytical Case would be the three Sides of a Triangle. An example of a non-analytical case would be the color of a drawn Triangle. As nothing contains itself, a mind cannot contain its own presuppositions, which are the laws of Logic. The mind May very Well think of them, No doubt. But the laws are not themselves Just objects in it. Therefore No cosmic mind is the source of them.
But the Idea, that there is only one mind is possible, insofar, as all Minds are Just one mind somehow shattered. But this would render all Minds essentially the Same and there would be No place for another destinct mind of a god, for what we would call god would be nothing then all minds.
What cannot be doubted is the existence of ultimacy reality. And i tend to get the notion, that all nearly all Religions try to Talk about exactly that when they speak of god. At least the somehow Theist ones. But there lies the entire Problem i think, for IT might be Well true, that there is a ultimate reality, but never right to say, that it shares anything in Common with particular beings, for it would be contradictory. The Ultimate is in no time, Space or Individuation by properties. It does nothing, and gets nothing. It does Not think, feel or want anything. It simply is, it is it, and Not even that, being literally no-thing.
It cannot be called, Not prayed to, Not bagged at. It cannot be protected, Nor fought for it. It cannot punish, Nor reward. It is the ground and also totality of what is called Matter and Form. Of what is called Body and Mind. It is the ground of all necessity and by that the necessary Thing Out of the world-perspective, but itself neither necessary nor Not.
The World is Like a Image cast by a mirror, and the laws of Logic are the Most profound reveal of what is mirrord.
Take all three laws, and think them through. You will realise the utmost astounding thing.
If the ultimate is Set as a variable, a thing, namely U, for U follows from the laws of Logic, that it is solely itself (U=U), that it is either itself or Not-itself (U or not-U), and that it is never itself and Not Itself (Not, U and not-U). By that, all, that is Not ultimate is on the other Side of a divided Line, while U Stands alone. This could be done for everything, so nothing Special would be found, unless all other Things are subsumable under 'higher' Things, namely Kinds under species. All Things are subsumed under the utmost General classes, until only two could remain. Relative and absolute for example. Of the absolute there can be only one. Of the Relative indefinitly many. But 'one' cannot be understood numericaly, as then it would be Part of many and relative, as a number. Rather, the notion of 'one' must be grasped in a self-evidant way.
The nearest that i came to that is by Reflecting in the laws of Logic. When you understand there Nature of being Impossibly Not, one May maybe grasp what they and i try to refer to.
Coming Back to the Problem mentioned concerning Religion, one can now See, to what it amounts to. Being somewhat aware of the ultimate, they Make the Most terrible category mistake, meaning, that they conflate both Sides of the Line. They call, what cannot be called, god. And by naming it that way, they obscure it and delude themselves unwillingly. In the presence of the true names of the ultimate, or maybe Just the nicknames for it, meaning the laws of Logic for example, they think about them as Derivative and in need of further grounding and source. But they dont undertand the Error they make, which is an Error, because they Imagine Something contradictory and therefore Impossible.
The Buddha for example might have grasped this very Well, and Others too, as it is available to anyone who tries.
All defenses of god are wrong, for they speak of Something wrong in the First place. One could start to mean by god the right Thing, but the Word may be to loaded and misleading by now. It explains also, why people of such faith are so eager and stuborn. For their minimal Experience is of the Same obviousness as the self-evidency of the laws of Logic. But thier fatal stand is, that they can be mistaken and are mistaken. How could you convince Someone of the wrongness of Something seemingly self-evident? This Problem has cursed the World since ages and will remain doing so, but one must never give Up, as this would be most contradictory.

[Rudxain]

1:40 it depends on how we define "existence" and under which context it applies. Axioms exist in an abstract reality, but that doesn't mean they exist physically. Harry Potter exists in fiction, but he definitely doesn't in our world.

The question of "do logic and math exist as the basis physical reality, or are they just mental constructs?" has been debated by philosophers for centuries, and there hasn't been consensus

[jordanh]

Hello David, thanks for the video. I was wondering if you could answer my objections if you get the time?

Thank you!

1. Why couldn't someone hold to Aristotelian realism regarding abstract objects, and say numbers exist in the universe, and we get knowledge of them by abstraction of the universe.

2. Instead of saying "Logic just is", why couldn't the atheist give a transcendental argument for Logic like Aristotle does in the Metaphysics? The denial of logic presumes the truth of Logic
Anticipating a reply I will say: (Words in my view have meaning, and aren't just rhetoric, and I think there is a way to prove definitely we aren't in the Cartesian simulation)

3. Even if the LoL (Laws of Logic) are necessary/unchanging/not in flux in the physical world, why would moving them to a immaterial world make them not able to be in flux ? Isn't it at least possible that they could change immaterially? I think Orthodox hold numbers and Logic as uncreated patterns or analogies that exist in the created order and relate to the Logoi. If the divine logoi are infinite in their possibilities, couldn't this mean that numbers could be as well? Meaning change could happen in both the material and other realms of existence.

So you wouldn't solve for the issue that you accuse atheists of.

An example in your theology of immaterial things changing could be seen in the instance the creation of souls in the mind of God go from non being, to being once they are created. God is beyond being itself, but the souls will exist immateriality after creation as well. Meaning change is not impossible in the immaterial realm (I am not totally sure about this)

[rusyadabirortodoks]

David şu videoların Türkçe de yapılsa da bizim toplumumuz da öğrenebilecek kaynaklar edinmiş olsa. Bizim topluma 3 nasıl ulaştıracağız çok kafamı kurcalıyor.

[ArvinTR-txew]

By 2:54 you lost me with the begging the question on nature of logic.

[AndreasEvgenikos]

Overall a good video, however the argument should not rely on the formation of knowledge being a justified true belief (for various reasons relating to Gettier Cases and Fake Barn cases if I am to be technical). Merely that laws of knowledge are self-evident since they are both a priori, analytic, are used already intuitively, and by extension are naturally always true a posteriori. In the business this makes the laws analytic truths

[alanlaxton]

What books do you recommend for arguments for God's existence and books that deal with science and faih

[ConservativeMirror]

The laws of logic are just a formal way of evaluating that propositions make sense. They are invented by humans. Before there were humans, there were no laws of logic. The laws of logic apply to propositions, not the external world. Before there were humans there were discrete objects but their discreteness wasn't governed or controlled by the laws of logic. The laws of logic are like rules of grammar in a natural language like English. They are just rules of making propositions that make sense. And like other languages like English or math(s), the rules are communicated from person to person via brains or writing or speech, but each receiver and sender needs to understand the concepts involved as with any language.

[gravios]

Great video. It's a good one because of how edible it is.

[charlesvandenburgh]

If necessarily existent thoughts require a necessarily existent mind, because we can have necessarily existing thoughts, we must be necessarily existent minds, which would make us uncaused beings, and therefore gods. Hardly a Christian view.

[John-nbep]

What's the counter argument for the flying teapot in space?

[tracetemple]

How is logic necessary for "unseen" things?

[bulletman]

If logic exists you got the problem of euthyphros dilemma of logic.

[wocxdid]

Yeah this was an epic fail and a misuse of logic, of concepts, with non-sequiturs, argument from incredulity from the top of my mind, and mostly false premises flying left and right. A for effort, but, this was silly.

[hansfrankfurter]

I've heard this same line towed on Jay Dyer's channel. The problem with this type of thinking is a massive equivocation between things like "laws of logic" whatever that means to you (I guess Aristotelian logic) and something more fuzzy like "reason" or "rational human thought". When you say things like "to deny the law of non-contradiction is to use it", you really saying to deny this law of logic you have to use human reason, which is not the same as saying "to deny the mind is to use the mind to deny it".

The other problem is that there are not unified set of "laws of logic", the laws of logic are formal systems used to model phenomena in the real world. That's why there's things like intuitionistic logic, with the excluded middle suspended and systems like paraconsistent logic with non-contradiction partially suspended and so on. To summarize the "laws of logic" aren't laws of reason or rational human thought. Putting aside whether mathematical thinking captures all of human reason, mathematics itself has offered us proof that it can never be captured by any unified finitary laws. That was the essence of Godel's incompleteness theorems, Tarski's undefinability results and all the limitative results of 20th century mathematics.

My final gripe is that mathematics or mathematical logic or formal logic...etc doesn't capture all of human rationality. This seems obvious enough, but if you want an scholarly "proof", just look at the issue of affordances.