An Argument for Theism From the Laws of Logic

James Anderson and Greg Welty wrote a paper outlining an argument for the existence of God based on the existence of logical laws. If the laws of logic exist (and no atheist suggests otherwise), then so does a necessarily-existent, personal mind, argues Anderson and Welty.

While I appreciate the bone they throw Van Tillians at the end of the essay, I’m not sure Van Til would be happy with how they got to their conclusion, especially their “conceivability is a reliable guide to possibility”argument

Here’s the link:

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf

There’s a lot to digest here. I’m happy they’ve written such a well-sourced and clear argument. Even if it may not be as “Van Tillian” as we Van Tillians would like, it still promises to be a wonderful “go-to” resource.

The paper is about how logic (and logical arguments) ultimately presuppose God, (if the conclusion of the paper is true.)When someone argues that “God doesn’t exist”, they are being inconsistent since logic itself presupposes a god.  (Note: the argument doesn’t specifically prove the Christian God, rather like most natural-theology projects, it proves a generic, necessary mind of some sort.)

I don’t see how this argument would refute the Skeptic or the malicious solipsist; the Skeptic could simply argue that there may be a possible world where logical laws are not necessary.

(To counter this, Anderson / Welty argue that would defy the very definition of “possible world”. But the Skeptic would likely counter that and claim it’s question-begging! At most, it might be argued: logical laws are necessary for human experience, but nothing says that human experience holds in all possible worlds.)

The solipsist might argue that *his* mind is the source of the necessarily-existent propositions we call “logical laws;” that *he* is the source of thoughts about truths-about-truths.

In either case, the non-believer is left with an avenue of escape and has legitimate grounds to claim (contrary to Romans 1) that he had an excuse not to believe.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

What irks me about the paper is that the authors start on a philosophically neutral standpoint.

Anyone, regardless of presuppositions, would (ideally) be able to work their way through this discussion and arrive at the conclusion: “some sort of necessary, personal mind exists.”Anderson / Welty are trying to be philosophers instead of Christians.

What they should have done is admit at the outset that they were going to conduct an exploration of the laws of logic within a Christian theological framework.

Then they could have concluded that: “Outside the Christian view of the world, it would be impossible to account for logic, since the laws of logic themselves presuppose the Christian God.”

I’m not in academia and have no interest in earning a place at the table of ivory-tower folk, so my frank opinion is that James Anderson is so willing to court the Satanists that he’s set Van Til on the shelf of old-toys and moved on to bigger and better schools of thought.

What philosopher would argue that his own mind isn’t the key to saving the world? What philosopher would knowingly set aside his weapons and humble himself before God?

“No, no, no… God must need our help!”

Despite my wisdom on the matter, I gobble up new and trendy philosophical essays and day-dream about my own contributions to the field.

God forgive me!

To Find the World of Fairy

Just after a bit of rain
on a hazy summer day,
at the edge where yard and hedge,
meet sullen forest ways,

Where grass of proper height,
meets crooked trees and shaded light,
and practical ditches or well-dug nooks,
become mossy banks and bubbling brooks,

Where the ordered world of modern folk,
Breaks upon the glade,
past the briars, where trees conspire
in sunbeams among the shade,

Lies the world of fairy,
In all its clever wonder
For men to see, (if it can be seen)
What this world will offer.

But some will say “A thousand times
I’ve walked along this way
and never once, no not once,
have the fairies come out to play!”

When the politician rambles,
About what his people want,
He pretends they’re out there living
Exactly as he thought.

And when the economist speaks
Of what living people do
his ideas are told to all the world
As if he really knew.

The historians are no better,
because out of all that’s been,
They choose one or two then think them through
and say “Such does all truth end!”

These men have walked through woods
But have never seen a fairy,
Strolling with arrogance along the paths
They return to a world that’s dreary.

“Where is the world of spirit” they ask?
“What’s happened to all the magic?”
They’ve moved themselves from where fairies dwell,
And replaced the sprites with fractions!

It is the printing press, if anything
That ushers the fairies away.
It drives the minds of men and times,
and a naive heart, betrays.

But no one controls everything
And even empires have their bounds.
Where those ends meet the wild retreats,
It’s there that fairies are found.