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