Logic is the science of valid inference. Laws of logic are not just descriptive as to the physical world, but are prescriptive as to rationality. They prescribe the right way to think. They are of the mind and apply conceptually, immaterial as it were, to truth statements.
For example, the law of non-contradiction is not just perceptively true—it is true.
Laws of physics don't impose themselves on our minds like this. The law of gravity doesn't tell us what to think; not how to think, the right way to think or how to come to truth statements by inductive, deductive, or abductive (e.g., scientific method) reasoning.
All conceptual laws reflect the mind of a lawgiver. We see this in societal laws. They reflect the mind of those who created the law. The only reasonable explanation for the kind of mind necessary to ground the existence of transcendent, absolute, and conceptual laws like logic is God, via syllogism.
Its true God upholds the world in a logical fashion, but laws of logic as we know them are conceptual, existing only in our minds. If laws of logic are simply properties of our brain ("how our brains work"), then why do we need laws of logic to correct how our brains works? If laws of logic simply are how our brains work, then we shouldn't need them to correct how our brains work. We should just think logically all the time, all things being equal of course. But negative. laws of logic actually prescribe to us "how to think" by guiding our thought processes.
Humans don't form laws of logic from observation (they are conceptual) or by convention (like which side of the road to drive on), we instead confirm pre-existing logical truths, which are absolute and universal, with our observations. As Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle remarked: "Laws of logic are conceptual in nature.” They do not describe aspects of the universe. Rather, they describe the correct chain of reasoning from premises to conclusions.” Hence, logical absolutes are abstract entities because concepts are incorporeal; yet being semantic debunking Platonism.
Second, if laws of logic were descriptions of the physical universe, then we might expect different regions of the universe to have different laws of logic since different regions of the universe are described differently; but laws of logic apply everywhere. Third, we would have no way of knowing if laws of logic apply in the future as they have in the past, since no one has experienced the universe's future. After all, conditions in the universe are constantly changing. If laws of logic were descriptions of such conditions, then they would change as well." If laymen atheists believe they know the universe better than an astrophysicist who graduated with highest honors at a secular university and who is a biblical creationist, then that's their folly.
We don't govern logic. Logic governs us. It tells us how to think and applies conceptually to truth statements. It prescribes rational thought. Logical truths exist whether there is a human mind to recognize them or formulate them into axioms or not. They are definitely "of the mind" and so the only sound foundation for universal, immaterial, prescriptive laws of logic is the unembodied mind of God. The TAG is simply an ironclad proof for the existence of God.
More articles on the TAG argument on the existence of God:
Inferring that Q is false just because if P is true, Q is also true, but P is false.
f P, then Q.
Therefore, not Q.
This fallacy is similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Again the problem is that some alternative explanation or cause might be overlooked. Although P is false, some other condition might be sufficient to make Q true.
Example: If there is a traffic jam, then a colleague may be late for work. But it is not right to argue in the light of a smooth traffic that the colleague will not be late. Again, his alarm clock may have stopped working.
This at first can seem like affirming the consequent, but it’s not. If you one thing is true because of something else, then that is affirming the consequent. If I say something is false because one thing is true, then that would be denying the antecedent. These occur in conditional statements which are if: then statements. Basically if a conditional statement doesn’t logically follow then you would be denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. If you deny the antecedent, then you can’t deny the consequent.
Example: If john doesn’t have a car, then he can’t get to work.
John doesn’t have a car; therefore, he can’t get to work. John could get to work by someone else or walk if he lives close enough to his work place. This example commits the denying the antecedent fallacy.
Example: If I didn’t have any water, then I didn’t have anything to drink.
I didn’t have any water; therefore, I didn’t have anything to drink. I clearly could have had a soft drink, coffee, milk, orange juice, or anything other drinkable. It’s not false that that I had anything to drink not based on the fact of not having water. On the fact that I didn’t not consume any form of liquid.
Example: If there’s no evidence for God, then he doesn’t exist.
There’s no evidence for God, therefore he doesn’t exist. Evidence of absence is not evidence of absence. If it were the case that there is no evidence for God right now, then it doesn’t follow that he doesn’t exist. There could be evidence in the future that shows the existence of God. Either you have to give a case against the existence of God, or you have to be an agnostic. It’s as simple as that. Of course, I do believe that there is very good evidence for the existence of God.
This is another fallacy that you know from reading the article. If you like this on Facebook, then you will be happy!
Please share this article with someone and please like this article on Facebook.
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb-DExmWLVwye-pIQcnhA8A
This list’s standards are based mostly of my opinions and the impact these ministries have had overall on the defense of the Christian Faith. These great apologists have helped me as a young apologists and many other Christians as well. This is my personal list of the top ten modern day Christian apologists. Also, these apologists are the ones that I have come across, so if you have any other great apologists, then let me know. Finally, here are my top ten picks for the defenders of the Christian Faith.
#10: Dr. Frank Turek
Dr. Frank Turek has a Master’s degree in Public Administratives from George Washington University and a Doctorate in Philosophy of Religion from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He’s written 4 books and co-authored more books as welled. He’s well known for his book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God To Make Their Case. He’s debated Christopher Hitchens, David Silverman, and many other atheists. He hosts a TV show called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and hosts a radio show called Cross-Examined. He Speaks at college campuses to give a case for the truth of the Gospel. Dr. Frank Turek is also the president of CrossExamined.org.
#9: Dr. Hugh Ross
Hugh Ross has a degree in Physics from the University of British Columbia and a PhD in Astronomy from the University of Toronto. Hugh is the owner of Reasons to believe which is an organization that gives scientific reasons to believe in God and Christianity. He has defended the proposition that the age of the Earth is compatible with the Bible. He has written many scientific books for presenting the science for God. Improbable Planet was written by him to show that Earth’s origin is best explained by God. He’s debated many Young Earth Creationists like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. He’s also debated atheists like Lewis Wolpert. He has truly demonstrated that faith and Science are compatible.
#8: James Warner Wallace
James Warner Wallace was an atheist for 35 years and turned Christian when applying his homicide detective skills to the claims of Christianity. He found the gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth to be reliable eyewitness accounts. He’s written three books for developing a solid case for the truth of Christianity. His book Forensic Faith, has shown that all Christians should make the case for Christianity since it’s a reasonable faith. God’s Crime Scene, makes the case for the existence of God and explains why we need to go outside the room to account for certain phenomena’s of our universe. Cold Case Christianity, makes the case for the reliability of the New Testament documents and the truth of the Christian faith. He has teamed up with Frank Turek on Fearless Faith Seminars to help spread the need for Apologetics. He shows what apologetics can do for an unbeliever.
#7: Dr. J.P Moreland
Dr. J.P Moreland is a Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Biola University. He holds four degrees which are B.S. in chemistry from the University of Missouri, Th.M. in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, M. A. in philosophy from the University of California-Riverside, and Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California. He has written many book on apologetics and philosophy. The reason he is on my top ten list is how Dr. Moreland is the defender of the soul and dualism today. He’s written many books about consciousness, free will, and the soul. He is a colleague of apologists like Dr. William Lane Craig. Moreland has challenged skeptics to rethink their materialist worldview concerning the soul.
#6: Lee Strobel
Lee Strobel was a journal writer for the Chicago Tribune and wrote for other newspapers as well. He has two degrees which include a Bachelor of Journalism from the University of Missouri and his Master of Studies in Law at Yale Law School. He was an atheist writer who wanted to prove the gospels were wrong and that Jesus Christ did not rise from the Dead. He turned Christian when he investigated the claims of the gospels from using his journalism skills. Just like J Warner Wallace, he turned Christian while trying to prove Christianity to be false. He has written The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, and The Case for Faith. These books have left in impact in the field of apologetics. Lee Strobel has made the case for Christianity through his extensive writings and commitments to the Gospel.
#5: Dr. Gary Habermas
Dr. Habermas is the chairman of the philosophy and theology at Liberty University. He has a PhD from Michigan State University in history and philosophy of religion and a master's degree from the University of Detroit in philosophical theology. He has made the case for the resurrection, the most important event of Jesus’ earthly ministries. He has debated Anthony Flew on the question of whether the resurrection actually happened. 4 of the seven judges voted that Gary won and the other four were undecided. He has co-authored over 35 books and written over 100 articles concerning his fields of study.
#4: Dr. Norman Geisler
Dr. Geisler has co-authored over 100 books and written hundreds of articles concerning Christian Apologetics. He has many degrees in theology and philosophy. Some refer to him as a cross between Thomas Aquinas and Billy Graham. He has also coauthored I don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist with Frank Turek. He has taught people like Dr. William Lane Craig and Greg Koukl. Norman has participated in many debates and has sealed the deal with many concerning the truth of Christianity. Dr. Norman Geisler has set the foundation for modern day Christian Apologetics.
#3: Dr. John Lennox
John Lennox is a professor of Mathematics at Oxford University (same University that Richard Dawkins teaches at). John Lennox holds an MA and DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was taught under the great C.S Lewis so he has some teaching experience from one of the best apologists. He’s written books like God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Another great book of his is Seven Days that Divide the World. This book gives John’s commentary of the controversy concerning the different interpretations of Genesis 1. Lennox has debated many of the New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Lawrence Krauss. The best of his debates are the two debates with the main horseman of the New Atheist movement. He’s debated Richard Dawkins twice and gave him a run for his money twice. These two debates are the closest we will get to see of a Richard Dawkins vs. William Lane Craig style debate. John Lennox has made science very compatible with the Faith of Christians.
#2: Ravi Zacharias
Almost on his deathbed at age 17, Ravi felt dead inside. He heard the gospel and came to Christ. Ever since then, he has defended the truth of the Christian Faith with grace and clarity. He started Ravi Zacharias International Ministries which has offices in many places on the globe. Their goal is to spread the Gospel to as many countries as possible and to give a defense for the Gospel. Ravi Zacharias has written many books concerning apologetics and the divinity of Jesus Christ. In Jesus among other Gods, Ravi compares the main differences between Christianity and other Religions. His most recent book Jesus Among Secular Gods, Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale compare the main differences between Jesus and new secular religions that have attacked the truth of Christianity. Ravi Zacharias has defended the truth of Christianity against those who deny the deity of Christ.
#1: Dr. William Lane Craig
Dr. William Lane Craig is perhaps one of the best defenders of the Christian Faith today. He has done over hundred of debates defending the Christian Faith against other Worldviews. He has debated most of the New Atheist Horsemen, excluding Dawkins of course. He has many degrees concerning philosophy and religion. He has a B.A from Wheaton College. He has a M.A from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Birmingham and University of Munich. William Lane Craig is currently a research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology. Craig has defended his five-point case for Christianity which consist of the Kalam Cosmological argument, the Fine-Tuning of argument, the Moral argument, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the fact that we can experience God. He has written and coauthored over 30 books concerning Christian Philosophy and Apologetics. Dr. William Lane Craig has truly made the Christian Faith a Reasonable Faith.
Please share this article with someone.
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb-DExmWLVwye-pIQcnhA8A