If the laws of logic are so wonderfully created, why don't they prove god's existence? Why must we take things on faith instead of logical proofs?

To further comment on some of what Aiia just posted, Logic cannot prove anything more than that some conclusion is consistent (or not) with the starting propositions.

If one or more of the input propositions or assumptions does not match reality, then the conclusion of a perfectly valid argument has not been demonstrated to correspond with reality. It may still be true, for other reasons, but not supported by the original argument, insofar as the conclusion is dependent on an unproved proposition.

So you cannot logically prove the existence of God if that is one of your initial assumptions.

And it doesn't depend on the existence of god. What do you think logic is? Some sort of hidden, immutable framework that props up the universe??

Logical thinking is a way of thinking that when used properly can assist us in reaching the most likely conclusions - nothing more. You seem to think it's like magic beans.

P.S. Please explain to me further about god's "unconditional and infinite love". How can love be 'unconditional and infinite' yet include eternal punishment?

I have repeatedly accounted for it in several posts.

I agree it is immaterial, it is an abstract idea, which is fully compatible with my actual word-view, whatever you see as a problem with what you think my world-view is. You are so deeply immersed in your world-view you have clearly demonstrated you have no conception of how I view things.

You clearly, once again, demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of the nature of logic and its origin as a formal system of analytical thought.

Again, you are merely showing your ignorance of my views.

You now show your misunderstanding of Occam's principle.

More demonstration of your lack of logical thinking..

You didn't say it in exactly those words - I failed to separate the parts of one of your paragraphs where you have both the quote you are responding to and your response. But you did say:

so that is pretty damn close.

Sure, my 'bias' is to not assume anything until justified, you make the illogical, unsupported assumption of God.

What came first: a god or logic? (I'm not talking temporally). If you say a god, then a god cannot possibly create logic with a reason to do so. Furthermore, such a god is inherently illogical while its creation is logical. If you say logic, then you have not solved your problem.

You using logic to get logic. That's circular. Me and others on this thread have pointed that out...

What other modes possibilities do you suppose there is?

Now it sounds like your back pedaling some, by suggesting that a god "both created logic (as we know it) and sustains it for that matter and logic in its ultimate form is an attribute of God." If a god used some other sort of logic to get logic "as we know it", this is at best an argument from silence and even worse still results in question begging.

How do you justify logic without using logic? Insofar as I can tell and others have pointed out, this is nonsense.

"Cows existing is a necessary precondition for having beef stew."

But your analogy is inconsistent with your premise. Cows certainly exist, there is no need to form an argument for them.

"'God existing is a necessary precondition to account for the laws of logic, when we use logic we prove my premise. If you can demonstrate that logic is validated in the absence of God, the floor is yours.'"

Ugh. Invalid. Beef, by definition, is meat taken from a cow. So yes, cows must exist to get beef. BUT there is nothing in the definition of logic that requires or even supposes a god, so your analogy fails.

"-- Using your own argument, the presupposition that you are making (logic exists) is circular, and thus fallacious."

It is not a presupposition to assume logic exists, it is demonstrable fact. Thus it cannot be circular or fallacious. It is simply true.

What this all boils down to, exnihiliO, is your statement that "Everything is bound by logic except my magic friend who created logic and is therefore not bound by it. Everything he does no matter how it violates the universal and unchanging logical laws is OK because they don't apply to him because he's magic"

Can you see why people here find it hard to buy what you're selling?

Another way to put it, eX, is that that you have not established any reason why a Universe in which Logic applies need be linked to anything other than something with those basic properties. IOW, sentience and intentionality are not required. Assumption of such attributes as primary only complicates understanding of what we now know of the Universe, even if it once seemed necessary to people of an era where we had far less knowledge of the nature of the Universe.

To forestall another common Theist response, while formulating the Laws of Logic requires a mind, the existence of those attributes which the Laws describe, does not, anymore than the the fact that we have formulated Quantum Theory as a description of the behaviour of fundamental particles mean that the behaviour of such particles is dependent on our existence and ability to describe it. 

Your position really boils down to the assertion that order of any kind has to be specified, created by a mind.

Whereas science has massively and repeatedly demonstrated that order only requires that the fundamental stuff of reality have a consistent behavior and attributes, which need only be very simple. In fact the simpler the better.

The apparent fact that you have based your world-view on these presuppositions does not make them true in any sense, however painful it might be for you to concede this. 

@ Atheistextremist

“And it doesn't depend on the existence of god. What do you think logic is? Some sort of hidden, immutable framework that props up the universe??”

Reply: Logic and the laws that govern it can only find proper validity in the character and nature of God. As a result of being made in the image of God, we reflect an attribute of God which can best be understood as ‘infinite logic.’

“Logical thinking is a way of thinking that when used properly can assist us in reaching the most likely conclusions - nothing more. You seem to think it's like magic beans.”

Reply: If you consider immaterial laws that bind every man in proper thinking magical, sure. I take it you don’t believe in absolute truths based on your usage of the phrase ‘most likely conclusions.’ I don’t generally engage in discourse with relativists to avoid wasting time, as no matter what I say, they will only accept it as the ‘most likely conclusion,’ and the supernatural God of the universe is to be taken as true or left. I’d also begin with reminding you that if there is no absolutes then you cannot absolutely be sure that there are no absolutes…  

“P.S. Please explain to me further about god's "unconditional and infinite love". How can love be 'unconditional and infinite' yet include eternal punishment?”

Reply: Unconditional in terms of discrimination… He can love everyone the same and is not swayed by the things we are… color, weight, smell, etc. Granted, He loves some more that others, and chooses people according to His own pleasure to save, IE: The Israelites… God punishes because He is also a just God and when your crime has been committed against an eternal Father, you better expect an eternal spanking. Forgive the poor analogy.

@Magus

“You must have only read the first sentence since my following one dealt with your assertion.  "Which means that God would already have the attribute of logic."  Is countered by logic is an attribute of the universe and we reflect its properties because we are part of the universe.”

Reply:

“So is your god bound by laws of logic?  If so then logic must come before god and not reliant upon it.  If not then gods nature is not logical and therefore cannot be trusted to be unchanged or understandable.”

Reply: The laws of logic as we know them would not apply to the nature of God, as we can only confirm them as binding on finite creatures. I would say that God, in His character, is limited by whatever attribute that He has that we reflect in logic, perhaps His infinite wisdom. I would say that God is infinitely logical and does not violate any of our laws of logic though, if that helps to box me in.

@BobSpence1

“I agree it is immaterial, it is an abstract idea, which is fully compatible with my actual word-view”

I’ll bite – how is it compatible?

“that is pretty damn close.”

Yet the differences make a huge difference…

(Second comment)

“Another way to put it, eX, is that that you have not established any reason why a Universe in which Logic applies need be linked to anything other than something with those basic properties.”

I think I have repeatedly. The basic properties of our universe are not enough to justify immaterial laws that are universal and objectively binding on all men.

 IOW, sentience and intentionality are not required. Assumption of such attributes as primary only complicates understanding of what we now know of the Universe, even if it once seemed necessary to people of an era where we had far less knowledge of the nature of the Universe”.

I think your comment flows from a presupposition that you know the nature of our universe, and on that point we clearly have a disagreement.

“To forestall another common Theist response, while formulating the Laws of Logic requires a mind, the existence of those attributes which the Laws describe, does not, anymore than the the fact that we have formulated Quantum Theory as a description of the behaviour of fundamental particles mean that the behaviour of such particles is dependent on our existence and ability to describe it.”

I’d like you to provide evidence for this. Logic is based on laws, and yet you liken it to Quantum theory… There is a significant diving line here I think. I think it’s a failed analogy.

“Your position really boils down to the assertion that order of any kind has to be specified, created by a mind.”

I think it best, especially for you, if we allow one another to define our own position. I can just blurt out that your position boils down to a sinful nature and that you are only suppressing the truth do to your unrighteousness as the Bible clearly teaches.

“Whereas science has massively and repeatedly demonstrated that order only requires that the fundamental stuff of reality have a consistent behavior and attributes, which need only be very simple. In fact the simpler the better.”

Occum’s razer is not without it’s shortcomings. I think your statement here is in conflict with a universe that could change at any moment. How can you rely on a consistent universe without the promises of God telling us that it will be the same until Christ’s second coming? You have no reason other that induction to believe that tomorrow will be like today, and with induction you beg the question… again.

I’ll state it as Hume did: “what reason do we have to believe that our conclusions about observed instances may be extended to include unobserved instances?”

“The apparent fact that you have based your world-view on these presuppositions does not make them true in any sense, however painful it might be for you to concede this. “

No presupposition is proven merely because we hold to it… My presupposition that God exists is evidenced through my argument. Despite your rejection set upon a fallacious system of logic (from your worldview) I think that is more than the atheist can say.

@ ubuntuAnyone

“What came first: a god or logic? (I'm not talking temporally). If you say a god, then a god cannot possibly create logic with a reason to do so. Furthermore, such a god is inherently illogical while its creation is logical. If you say logic, then you have not solved your problem.”

Reply: Your question is invalid. God is eternally and  infinitely logical, and as a result of being made in the image of God, we reflect this attribute. This makes a perfect account of logic.

 “Now it sounds like your back pedaling some, by suggesting that a god "both created logic (as we know it) and sustains it for that matter and logic in its ultimate form is an attribute of God." If a god used some other sort of logic to get logic "as we know it", this is at best an argument from silence and even worse still results in question begging.”

Reply: I’d like to request the dignity of you respecting the God we are speaking of… As a Christian I am here to defend the one-true God of Scripture… it may help you to recognize that and understand that all other ‘gods’ are false. That being said, I never took on the responsibility to explain the attributes of God in their fullness. God didn’t use anything to make anything. The reason I said ‘as we know it’ is because it is not possible to know the fullness of God’s attribute of infinite wisdom. The logic of man reflects the infinite wisdom of God I think. I should have used different words.

If your case stands still, please make it plan why it is an argument from silence or question begging, I am open to defending against those claims if you have a point…

“How do you justify logic without using logic? Insofar as I can tell and others have pointed out, this is nonsense.”

My point is that you can’t. And if you can’t, your starting axiom of the legitimacy of logic is based on a direct violation of logic, which is the validation of logic by means of using logic, which is a clear instance of begging the question.

@aiia

“a priori knowledge is independent of experience”

This is a good cop-out and admission that you only have this or a fallacy to base it on. The pitfall of your statement is that in saying you have a priori knowledge of logic, you beg the question by presupposing the existence of logic and you employ it while making your statement… If that is all you have, I’m comfortable with that…

“If the statement "logic itself [is] circularly fallacious" is true, then the statement "logic itself [is] circularly fallacious" is circular and fallacious; also it would make every statement uttered circular and fallacious. Clearly this is absurd!”

My friend… you are missing it. You just made my case for me. In an atheist worldview, logic is circularly fallacious and in contrast the Christian worldview externally validates the laws of logic in the character and nature of God. Your ending statement is my entire response to your accepting logic on a fallacious pretense, Clearly, this is absurd!

“Consequently, by definition, a presupposition is spurious, an unsupported assertion, and ipsedixitistic.”

Reply: You have certainly reformed the definition of presupposition. Your atheism is an ipsedixitism.

“ You've made a naked assertion. Again, prove "god". I can do the same thing you did thusly, "Mathematics proves that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. Why? The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only way mathematics can exist and function as it does...and your worldview of 'god' cannot account for where mathematics come from".

If the IPU was commonly understood and an infinitely wise unchanging Creator and if we were made in the image of the IPU, I think you might have a point. Thankfully, Christians have shown the IPU to be a false god.

“You are basically saying "logic exists therefore god exists".

Exactly wrong. I’m saying, as I have many times already, that God is a necessary precondition for logic to exist, and therefore logic is evidence for the existence of God… if there was a different way to explain the existence of the laws of logic, if logical arguments ceased to exist I would reconsider my position, assuming it would be possible to do without logic.

“There is undeniable evidence that logic exists and the evidence proves logic exists. You used logic to write the statement above. Conclusively logic is not a presupposition.”

Yes, you are right, there is undeniable evidence that proves logic, but none that explains why. I used logic to write my statement because logic exists and the God of the universe (the one that commands us both, and the one that I follow) externally validates the laws of logic… my worldview accounts for logic and I am so permitted to use it, you have yet to account for the laws of logic so the indictment is on you because you are forced to ride of the back of God to argue against Him… it’s encouraging and humorous that He made it that way.

@Vaset

“But your analogy is inconsistent with your premise. Cows certainly exist, there is no need to form an argument for them.”

Assume that the only evidence we had was the stew… that would be enough to prove that they exist, just as if we only had logic, it would also be sufficient in evidencing the existence of God. Try again.

“Ugh. Invalid. Beef, by definition, is meat taken from a cow. So yes, cows must exist to get beef. BUT there is nothing in the definition of logic that requires or even supposes a god, so your analogy fails.”

A unique attribute of being a Cow is the ability to produce beef… you can’t get beef from non-cows. Likewise, a unique attribute of God is the ability to produce laws of logic… you cannot obtain logic from non-Gods. All analogies eventually break down, but this one is good for the argument.

“It is not a presupposition to assume logic exists, it is demonstrable fact. Thus it cannot be circular or fallacious. It is simply true.”

Demonstrable yes, but only by using the very same logic or accepting it as an axiom…. This is begging the question yet again. God is simply true, as evidenced by logic, creation, and morality. I guess I win when we boil off all the fat since we can just say something is simply true…

“If that were true, and I've previously explained why it isn't, then you need to account for god. Good luck.”

God is accounted for each time we use logic to explain Him.

@jcgadfly

What this all boils down to, exnihiliO, is your statement that "Everything is bound by logic except my magic friend who created logic and is therefore not bound by it. Everything he does no matter how it violates the universal and unchanging logical laws is OK because they don't apply to him because he's magic"

Can you see why people here find it hard to buy what you're selling?

The nature of God is above logic, I admit that because we merely reflect in a finite existence an attribute that spans eternally… just as all of God’s attributes do. If magic friends existed, wouldn’t you want to have one? I think so. And I find it ironic that pop culture swarms around the world of fantasy… you have Spiderman, Superman, Batman, this man, that man… 10 million people provoking the assumed supernatural forces of our world on Warcraft… I think God has a sense of humor… you mock me for having a ‘magic friend,’ and I have little doubt that you have engaged in being someone’s magic friend yourself in some fantasy video game, Halo, etc.. Irony.

@nigelTheBold

“Presuppositionalism suffers from a begging-of-the-question. Essentially, it attributes to god that which is rightly an attribute of the universe: consistency and coherency. Those are the only two things required for logic. Any set of consistent and coherent axioms result in a logic system. The axioms of the universe are merely the natural processes that govern interaction of time, matter, and energy. Our understanding of logic is simply our discovery of the general principles of the universe.”

The problem, as stated before, is that you as a non-theist have no reason to expect consistency and coherency in the universe. (Ironically, you must presuppose this, but I digress.) The Christian relying on the promises of God to sustain the uniformity we see within nature does have reason to rely on the consistency we find in nature… Hume calls it the problem of induction… you have no reason from an atheist perspective to expect the universe to function the same way tomorrow as it does today, which would reduce any ‘laws’ you observe to fallacies. The reason for this is because the only reason to expect tomorrow to be like today is because today was like yesterday. This creates and infinite regression and begs the question. Strike one.

“Any defense of presuppositionalism must provide a logical reason for attributing to god that which seems to be a part of the natural universe. So far, your argument presumes these are attributes of god, without providing any rationale other than, "They must belong to god, as god is responsible for logic." This is a textbook case of the logical fallacy of "begging the question."

… if we find something within the universe that can only be accounted for if the Christian God exists then we have good enough reason to believe that God exists. Creation, logic, and morality are three examples. Our belief in God or lack of one drives the examination of each instance. If you are open-minded, the Christian God is the most logical explanation for all of them, but if you start from the premise of rejecting God, your bias dictates how you perceive the details of creation, logic, and morality and then you proceed to desperately find a way to avoid your Creator. If this were true, I would expect a denial of this and then some equivocation to follow, but I am no prophet.

“Is there any reason we should accept your proposition that god is necessary for consistency and coherency within the universe? Or should we continue under the assumption that the processes of the universe are consistent and coherent because that is the nature of the universe?”

See above. Basically, it’s because all other worldviews fall short of providing the uniformity of nature, et al. Thus ours is evident and proven by necessity.

“I would further propose that no universe can exist without consistent and coherent processes.”

Agreed, but the Christian worldview must be presupposed in order for this to be the case.

 Logic exists due to the weak anthropic principle -- only a logically-sound system of processes can generate a stable universe, which is a requirement for intelligence. Therefore, it is not only unsurprising the universe is consistent and coherent, but it would be far more amazing if we were to find ourselves in a universe that was not consistent and coherent.”

I’m at a loss. What allows you to account for the uniformity within the universe without begging the question through induction? We can start there.

As for you positing the anthropic principle… If we get a tautology I’ll take mine as ‘God exists.’ I think at that point, I have the philosophical high-ground.

@Jormungander

“Here is the real crux of the matter for me. Positive evidence is all that I care about.”

I have to ask… what is the positive evidence that lead you to the conclusion that all you should care about is things that you can find positive evidence for? I have a feeling it’s metaphysical.

“If a million metaphycial arguments contract the evidence, then the evidence wins.”

Have it your way… You are in conflict with most of the great minds of history and you willingly narrow your thinking in my opinion, which is fine.

“If there is a lack of positive evidence for something, then I don't see the justification in believing in it.”

Where is the positive evidence you have for believing what you just said?

“The positive evidence for cows allows me to believe in them.”

What would you conclude if the last cow on planet earth was killed to make the stew? Would that change the truth of the matter? Of course not.

“The lack of positive evidence for deities makes me not believe in them.”

The metaphysical laws of logic you just employed proves that God exists, positively.

“If there was positive evidence for a deity, then we wouldn't need to engage in this kind of tortuous and convoluted "logic" to try and justify the deity's existace metaphysically. “

We don’t have to, this is just one way. Morality and creation are two others we can use. Regardless, your commitment to atheist changes the way you perceive the evidence, so it’s really irrelevant which argument we use.

“Amateur philosophy and apologetics won't make be believe in something that lacks positive evidence to support it. It is not just that I disagree with eXnihilO's argument, it is that I don't even care.”

Oh I know… only God can change your heart and overcome your rebellion and while I hope that happens, I have no control over what you choose to believe. I plant seeds, God makes them grow. Your lack of care doesn’t change reality.

Grace and peace.