Logical argument

[dantheman2]

First you have to prove that God does indeed exist before you can proceed to claim He created us and everything else. You have not done that.

Ummm....it is a logical argument. The conclusion is not what proves the premesis. You have it backwards.

[John81]

Ummm....it is a logical argument. The conclusion is not what proves the premesis. You have it backwards.

No, a logical argument requires a basis. You have not proved God exists. You have proclaimed what you believe but you have provided no basis for that belief to be considered valid.

[dantheman2]

No, a logical argument requires a basis. You have not proved God exists. You have proclaimed what you believe but you have provided no basis for that belief to be considered valid.

None are so blind as those who will not see. I pray that you will soon open your eyes.

[John81]

None are so blind as those who will not see. I pray that you will soon open your eyes.

You should take care in casting such claims.

As has been pointed out to you by others, logic and faith are two separate matters.

By faith, I KNOW God is real, God created all things, and salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone. I believe the Word of God.

My believing all that doesn't prove, in the realm of logic, that all I said is true. Human logic only goes so far, at which point faith and godly wisdom must take over.

We can't "prove" God exists or created all things by saying it's true or by pointing to the Bible and saying that since the Bible says so, then that provides a logical argument for such proof. However, by faith we can know these things are true and others can know they are true as well if they are born again in Christ and allow the Holy Ghost to teach them. Yet none of that falls in the realm of human logic.

[Annie]

Premise 1: If it is true that you exist
Premise 2: AND it is true that you can exist by no other means than by God creating you
Conclusion: THEN God must exist.

1: You do exist
2: You can exist by no other means than by God creating you
3: Therefore God must exist

But upon what is this logic based? What came before the logic? In other words, where did you get your #2? And how do you know that there is an entity called "God"? (Hint: the answer starts with an F.) There are two invisible presuppositions hiding in this premise...presuppositions that you have not proven by reason or physical evidence. "IF" doesn't lead to truth.

See, I can do this, too...
Premise 1: If it is true that I have trash scattered all over my yard
Premise 2: AND it is true that the only way I can have trash scattered all over my yard is that our dog tipped over the trash bin,
Conclusion: THEN it is true that the dog tipped over the trash bin.

1. There is trash scattered all over my yard.
2. The only way I can have trash scattered all over my yard is that our dog tipped over the trash bin.
3. Therefore, the dog tipped over the trash bin.

Airtight logic? Yes. Reasonable? Useful for proving a point or arriving at the truth about my dog and trash? No...because #2 isn't verifiable. There may be other ways that trash could get scattered over my yard. In order for this logic to have any usefulness or meaning to you, or "prove" anything to you, you would first have to accept or reject my point #2 BY FAITH.

And, while we're at it...(this is kinda fun)
P1. If it is true that my daughter is concertmaster of her orchestra
P2. AND it is true that the only way my daughter is concertmaster of her orchestra is that she won the orchestra's concerto competition,
Q. THEN my daughter won the orchestra's concerto competition.

1. My daughter is concertmaster of her orchestra.
2. The only way my daughter could be concertmaster of her orchestra is that she won the orchestra's concerto competition.
3. Therefore, my daughter won the orchestra's concerto competition.

So, did this syllogism lead you to the truth about my daughter? Is she concertmaster? Did she win the orchestra's concerto competition? Do I even have a daughter? Assuming I have a daughter, is she a musician? Is she a violinist? Dan, what's the truth? Since logic is so helpful in determining the truth, it ought to be crystal clear to you what that truth is. What is the truth about my daughter, the concertmaster, and the concerto competition?

Your logic gets you nowhere, Dan, because your point 2 must be taken by faith...You assume something that neither reason nor logic can prove all by itself. Logic isn't enough, and it certainly isn't the starting point. Faith comes first.

I'm still waiting for you to "prove," with only the use of logic and reasoning, the existence of the Trinity, the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and, if you get a chance, the eternality of God. Edited April 12, 2011 by Annie

[JerryNumbers]

It would be nice in a way if we could prove to people by logic that God is real, yet God did not set things up that way.

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I can't help but think of this verse, Jesus saying, " blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." It so clear, there, as in other places, its all about faith, not logic.

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

We do not please Him by logic, we can only please Him by faith. And its only faith that saves.

[DennisD]

Hmm, maybe I'm just thinking logic is something more than it is. But, to put it in simple terms (that's where I work best, simple ). The creation all around us, logic would suggest there is a creator. Faith too, but logically if there is a well built car...there must have been a person to make that car. Thus, if there is a well built human or tree or animal or whatever....there must have been a creator. To me, that is logical.

Just looked up logical and I think definition 3 spells it out the way I see it:

log·i·cal   /ˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Show Spelled
[loj-i-kuhl] Show IPA

–adjective
1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.
3. reasonable; to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats.
4. of or pertaining to logic.

It is VERY reasonable and expected that there is a creator for the creation.

Now, maybe logic also changes with regard to perspective. To one person, it is not logical there is a creator for the creation and they think evolution is logical or the Big Bang theory. Where, I find both of those illogical.

Okay, now that I've successfully tied my brain into a knot...carry on. :blink:

Edited April 12, 2011 by DennisD

[Annie]

Hmm, maybe I'm just thinking logic is something more than it is. But, to put it in simple terms (that's where I work best, simple ). The creation all around us, logic would suggest there is a creator. Faith too, but logically if there is a well built car...there must have been a person to make that car. Thus, if there is a well built human or tree or animal or whatever....there must have been a creator. To me, that is logical.

Just looked up logical and I think definition 3 spells it out the way I see it:

log·i·cal   /ˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Show Spelled
[loj-i-kuhl] Show IPA

–adjective
1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.
3. reasonable; to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats.
4. of or pertaining to logic.

It is VERY reasonable and expected that there is a creator for the creation.

Now, maybe logic also changes with regard to perspective. To one person, it is not logical there is a creator for the creation and they think evolution is logical or the Big Bang theory. Where, I find both of those illogical.

Okay, now that I've successfully tied my brain into a knot...carry on.

I agree, Dennis. That there is a creator is certainly reasonABLE/logicAL, but you cannot "prove" with reason and logic that there is a creator. You cannot start with logic; you must start with presuppositions based on faith. Evolutionists also must start with presuppositions based on faith. And, even if someone looked around and saw creation and thought to himself, "There must be a God who created all this," he would still have to believe by faith, since no one was there to observe how the world began. And, the only reason a man would even think this (that there might be a creator) is that he is programmed by God with that knowledge, and is made in God's image. It's not "all logic," at any rate.

Then there are the Christian doctrines which are completely outside the realm of logic/reason: the Trinity, eternity, the virgin birth, the resurrection. They are miraculous to humans, and must therefore be accepted by faith. The veracity of Scripture is another example of something which must be accepted by faith. Is there evidence that the Scripture is true? Sure...to those who already believe it by faith. To those who have already presupposed that Scripture is not true, all of the "evidence" to the contrary will be interpreted in a completely different light, according to the unbeliever's presupposition. An unbeliever cannot be convinced by logic alone of the truth. God must intervene, and faith must be granted him. This is my main problem with Dan's posts. He asserts that we cannot believe ANYTHING that is true without STARTING WITH LOGIC. Edited April 12, 2011 by Annie

[dantheman2]

But upon what is this logic based? What came before the logic? In other words, where did you get your #2? And how do you know that there is an entity called "God"? (Hint: the answer starts with an F.) There are two invisible presuppositions hiding in this premise...presuppositions that you have not proven by reason or physical evidence. "IF" doesn't lead to truth.

See, I can do this, too...
Premise 1: If it is true that I have trash scattered all over my yard
Premise 2: AND it is true that the only way I can have trash scattered all over my yard is that our dog tipped over the trash bin,
Conclusion: THEN it is true that the dog tipped over the trash bin.

1. There is trash scattered all over my yard.
2. The only way I can have trash scattered all over my yard is that our dog tipped over the trash bin.
3. Therefore, the dog tipped over the trash bin.

Airtight logic? Yes. Reasonable? Useful for proving a point or arriving at the truth about my dog and trash? No...because #2 isn't verifiable. There may be other ways that trash could get scattered over my yard. In order for this logic to have any usefulness or meaning to you, or "prove" anything to you, you would first have to accept or reject my point #2 BY FAITH.

And, while we're at it...(this is kinda fun)
P1. If it is true that my daughter is concertmaster of her orchestra
P2. AND it is true that the only way my daughter is concertmaster of her orchestra is that she won the orchestra's concerto competition,
Q. THEN my daughter won the orchestra's concerto competition.

1. My daughter is concertmaster of her orchestra.
2. The only way my daughter could be concertmaster of her orchestra is that she won the orchestra's concerto competition.
3. Therefore, my daughter won the orchestra's concerto competition.

So, did this syllogism lead you to the truth about my daughter? Is she concertmaster? Did she win the orchestra's concerto competition? Do I even have a daughter? Assuming I have a daughter, is she a musician? Is she a violinist? Dan, what's the truth? Since logic is so helpful in determining the truth, it ought to be crystal clear to you what that truth is. What is the truth about my daughter, the concertmaster, and the concerto competition?

Your logic gets you nowhere, Dan, because your point 2 must be taken by faith...You assume something that neither reason nor logic can prove all by itself. Logic isn't enough, and it certainly isn't the starting point. Faith comes first.

I'm still waiting for you to "prove," with only the use of logic and reasoning, the existence of the Trinity, the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and, if you get a chance, the eternality of God.

Annie,

The difference between your "argument" and mine is that both premises in my argument are true and thus the conclusion is true (logically); in neither of your arguments is the second premise necessarily true. I suggest you go back and study logic a bit more. I suggest that several on here do so.

[dantheman2]

Hmm, maybe I'm just thinking logic is something more than it is. But, to put it in simple terms (that's where I work best, simple ). The creation all around us, logic would suggest there is a creator. Faith too, but logically if there is a well built car...there must have been a person to make that car. Thus, if there is a well built human or tree or animal or whatever....there must have been a creator. To me, that is logical.

Just looked up logical and I think definition 3 spells it out the way I see it:

log·i·cal   /ˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Show Spelled
[loj-i-kuhl] Show IPA

–adjective
1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.
3. reasonable; to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats.
4. of or pertaining to logic.

It is VERY reasonable and expected that there is a creator for the creation.

Now, maybe logic also changes with regard to perspective. To one person, it is not logical there is a creator for the creation and they think evolution is logical or the Big Bang theory. Where, I find both of those illogical.

Okay, now that I've successfully tied my brain into a knot...carry on.

Finally, someone actually looks at logic and sees what is there. Though, I must disagree with you on the idea that someone else can look at logic in a different way and come up with a different logic. Yes, they can come up with a "different logic" but it will not be logic. Just as I can define "faith" or the "Bible" or "God" in some other way but my definition will make none of these things different than what they actually are.

[dantheman2]

I agree, Dennis. That there is a creator is certainly reasonABLE/logicAL, but you cannot "prove" with reason and logic that there is a creator. You cannot start with logic; you must start with presuppositions based on faith. Evolutionists also must start with presuppositions based on faith. And, even if someone looked around and saw creation and thought to himself, "There must be a God who created all this," he would still have to believe by faith, since no one was there to observe how the world began. And, the only reason a man would even think this (that there might be a creator) is that he is programmed by God with that knowledge, and is made in God's image. It's not "all logic," at any rate.

Then there are the Christian doctrines which are completely outside the realm of logic/reason: the Trinity, eternity, the virgin birth, the resurrection. They are miraculous to humans, and must therefore be accepted by faith. The veracity of Scripture is another example of something which must be accepted by faith. Is there evidence that the Scripture is true? Sure...to those who already believe it by faith. To those who have already presupposed that Scripture is not true, all of the "evidence" to the contrary will be interpreted in a completely different light, according to the unbeliever's presupposition. An unbeliever cannot be convinced by logic alone of the truth. God must intervene, and faith must be granted him. This is my main problem with Dan's posts. He asserts that we cannot believe ANYTHING that is true without STARTING WITH LOGIC.

Annie,

You are misunderstanding what "faith" and "logic" are. You are defining each differently that either actually is. When one does so of course he can then say something else is true than what is.

I can know and prove that God does exists. Yes, I take it by faith but my faith is not blind but is based on evidence. That evidence does in fact prove that God exists. Actually you made a logical agrument (without putting it in a formula) that God exist in the fact that God "programmed" us with the knowledge or at least a belief in him. Our moral values which are not based upon society but upon something higher is evidence of the existence of God. All of these PROVE the existence of God.

You can accept the truth or not. Either way, I am done arguing about it.

[DennisD]

Finally, someone actually looks at logic and sees what is there. Though, I must disagree with you on the idea that someone else can look at logic in a different way and come up with a different logic. Yes, they can come up with a "different logic" but it will not be logic. Just as I can define "faith" or the "Bible" or "God" in some other way but my definition will make none of these things different than what they actually are.

I don't think someone would look at logical different ways, it would be their perspective which is different. One thing that is reasonable (logical) to one person might be unreasonable (illogical) to another. So, while the word logic remains the same...it's the human fault or perspective or whatever it should be called that differs. So, while you might think we differ...I think we are saying the same thing. The "different logic" as you put it is actually the "different perspective" in my view.

[dantheman2]

I don't think someone would look at logical different ways, it would be their perspective which is different. One thing that is reasonable (logical) to one person might be unreasonable (illogical) to another. So, while the word logic remains the same...it's the human fault or perspective or whatever it should be called that differs. So, while you might think we differ...I think we are saying the same thing. The "different logic" as you put it is actually the "different perspective" in my view.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Yes, it does come down to someone's perspective. But, the fact is that when I come to "my own perspective" it either agrees with logic or it is wrong. When I say something which is illogical, I am saying something that is wrong.

[JerryNumbers]

And remember, the lost man does not believe the Bible is God's Word to mankind, that in it self changes his logic.

Ro 1:20 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:

Yet they will not have an excuse when they face the 'Great White Throne.'

[Annie]

You can accept the truth or not. Either way, I am done arguing about it.

So, you're not going to take me up on the challenge to prove logically that the Trinity exists (without any invisible presuppositions that must be accepted by faith, like the truth of the "Scripture [which] speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit")? Or that God is eternal, or that Christ rose from the dead? In short, Dan, anyone familiar with logic can do what you're doing, but it doesn't prove anything to those who do not share your presuppositions. I agree that faith in Christian doctrine/Bible/etc. is logicAL and resonABLE, but there are matters of faith which cannot be proven by logic/reason alone, or even starting with reason/logic. "Evidence" interpreted in light of one's presuppositions doesn't equal "proof" except to that person...and even then, it depends on what you mean by "proof."

Full disclosure, Dan: I grew up in a home chock full of magazines from ICR, AIG, Francis Schaeffer's books, C.S. Lewis's works, etc. I read just about every apologetic work that I could find. I love the radio show, "Let My People Think," with Ravi Zacharias. And what I've learned over the years is that logic and reason aren't going to convert anyone. Only a supernatural act of God by which the mind and heart are opened to see the truth and accept it by faith can save a soul.* Scripture says clearly that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, because they are FOOLISHNESS unto him, because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned." Preaching is also called "foolishness" in Corinthians. Paul "came not with eloquence and the wisdom of man's words."

*I know because I've tried it...reasoning someone into salvation, and it doesn't work. As Dennis said, people with different/opposing perspectives (I call them presuppositions) use logic to "prove" their own preconceived opinions about what truth is. My uncle (homosexual professional musician) doesn't accept the logic you've laid out. It's simply not useful as a starting point for arriving at truth which, according to Scripture, must be accepted by faith. My aunt (Universalist with a PhD in economics) uses logic to "prove" her viewpoints, too. So, from my uncle and aunt's vantage points, hey, we can all use logic to support our presuppositions...so, whose presuppositions are correct? They're all equal, or might as well be. Same with my Mormon/charismatic grandmother...She trots out "scripture" from the Book of Mormon just like we use the Bible to "prove" various things. Their view: Annie presupposes that man cannot exist without God, and uses that presupposition in her logic, but she cannot prove that presupposition with evidence that is acceptable to us...so what use is her logic to us? I think the same thing about them.

So, again, this kind of logic is not at all useful with people who, as Dennis said, have different perspectives/presuppositions. And we must acknowledge that our "logic" would not even exist without our own set of presuppositions which reveal themselves in our premises. You yourself acknowledged this fact when you said, "Yes, it does all come down to a person's perspective." That's all I'm saying, so don't we agree?

By the way, were you able to arrive at the truth about my daughter? No? Of course not, because logic is not useful for finding truth unless you (and your audience) can agree on the veracity of the premises/presuppositions.

Here's some atheist logic for you:
P1: IF, as some claim, there is an all-powerful, loving God who actually exists,
P2: AND there is human suffering in our world (wars, child abuse, earthquakes),
Q1: THEN, either this God does not exist,
Q2: OR this God exists and is all-powerful but not loving,
Q3: OR this God exists and is loving but not all-powerful.

Not put in a way that would have pleased my logic teacher, but you get the general idea... Edited April 13, 2011 by Annie