Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Here is the article I was looking for.
The author is Jason Lisle, who earned a PhD in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado.
The article is from the Answers in Genesis website.
The article is addressed to Christians who are interested in apologetics:
https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-...stence-of-god/
I'll add a little more from what neeeel wrote, and I'll add that it's a bad argument. In fact,
you know it's a bad argument too, and so does Dr Lisle.
"Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge."
Something I've always noticed with this "laws of logic are immaterial, universal, unchanging and God is immaterial, universal, unchanging" notion is that the apologist was quick to drop all the characteristics that
don't apply! What about logic being an abstract entity? That would have to make God an abstract entity. What about God being all powerful? That would have to make the laws of logic all powerful. See what I mean? It's a cherry-picking fallacy.
"The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth...."
Being able to account for something means what? Having an explanation? More useful is whether the explanation is a good one, I'd hope you agree. Regardless, this is nothing more than a type of "God did it", which isn't an explanation, but just a bare assertion. I'd add that anyone claiming something to be true must be using reason correctly in their argument, so any claim about God that someone is offering needs to presuppose the laws of logic.
"However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang?"
First, if for the sake of argument this was accepted as true, it would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. Second, it isn't true since there are plenty of ways to explain the laws of logic (the most obvious one being that you are confusing the map for the place...you should understand what this means if you've really looked into counter arguments). Third, and most relevant to this discussion, is that again accepting it for the sake of argument as true, it does nothing to support your claim that only trinitarian Christianity can account for the laws of logic etc.
The mountain ahead of you is to prove that it is impossible that there is any other way to "account for" logic, including currently unknown accounts that have not yet been proposed. As I said in one of my first replies, this is the missing proof that presuppositional apologists do not support.