top of page

Summary Point

Why is God the best explanation for the laws of logic (i.e. rational thinking)?

Subpoints

Since logic provides immaterial rules for reasoning and are applicable to all mankind, the source must be an immaterial & transcendent mind – God.

  1. There is a right and wrong way to reason (logic); and these rules are immaterial so they cannot be explained by materialism/atheism.

    • According to theologian R.C. Sproul, logic does not consist of material content, similar to mathematices.1

    • How does logic pertain to God? Dr. Jason Lisle provides a summary of why God is the source of logic:

      • "Laws of logic are God's standard for thinking.  Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter, they apply everywhere, and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God's unchanging nature. And they are a prerequisite for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.”2

  2. Since the Laws of Logic are applicable to ALL humankind, but CANNOT be changed by humankind, the source must transcend mankind.

    • The laws of logic provide a standard way of reasoning for everyone. Since people cannot change these rules, they must come from a transcendent source.

    • Also, a person cannot deny that laws of logic exist without utilizing them.

      • If someone says, ‘I don’t believe the laws of logic exist’, they must provide reasons and arguments (i.e. logic) for this position; otherwise, it is just an opinion lacking support.

    • Dr. Greg Bahnsen stated in a debate with Dr. Gordon Stein that it is impossible to prove anything if God does not exist. This is because God is necessary to have immaterial laws of logic.

      • “…I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything.”3

  • Evolution cannot account for reason, since thinking would be reduced to random chemical activity in the brain, with no way to know whether something was objectively true (including the theory of evolution).

    • According to Dr. Jason Lisle, “The evolutionist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.”4

    • Since the laws of logic CANNOT be changed, the source cannot be humankind. In other words, if it is not possible to change logic, then the rules cannot have been created by man or based on evolution.

      • Dr. Jason Lisle elaborates on this point: “But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road)…if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person, because everyone has different reactions in his or her brain...if laws of logic are chemical reactions, then they are not laws and they are not universal; they would not extend beyond my brain.”4

    • Scientist Walt Brown quotes J.B.S. Haldane: “For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.”5

    • C.S. Lewis summarizes why evolution would result in thinking being an accidental motion of atoms.

      • “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.  If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms.”6

Logic (rules for rational thinking) cannot be changed by people

Laws of Logic

Wrong

Right

Links to external resources on this topic:

Anchor 1

Context:

  • Is there a right and wrong way to reason? Yes – it’s called logic. “Logic is the discipline that studies correct reasoning.”7 A classic example of using logic for correct reasoning is provided below. The conclusion is intuitive to us.

    • 1. All men are mortal  2. John is a man  3. Therefore, John is mortal.

  • Where do these rules come from? We use them everyday, but they are clearly not made of matter and energy. Whether they exist is NOT open to debate; in fact, you would have to use logic if tried to argue against it, proving it exists.

  • Any worldview that wants to be considered rational and be taken seriously must provide an explanation for logic. Otherwise, it lacks the justification for thinking, reasoning and proving anything. Dr. Jason Lisle confirms this point:

    • "Rational reasoning involves using the laws of logic. Therefore, a rational worldview must be able to account for the existence of such laws.”8

Anchor 2

Sources (complete reference information provided on SOURCE PAGE):

  1. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas, p.41.

  2. Lisle, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, p.52.

  3. Sweis & Meister (Editors), Christian Apologetics, p.142.

  4. Lisle, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, p.53.

  5. Brown, In the Beginning, p.66 quoted J.B.S Haldane, Possible Worlds (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), p.209.

  6. Brown, In the Beginning, p.66 quoted C.S. Lewis, God In the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp.52-53.

  7. Davis, An Introduction to Logic, p.1.

  8. Lisle, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, p.51.

bottom of page