Sometime in September of 2010, Christian apologist, Bill Pratt wrote an article entitled “Is God subject to logic.“Â Bill Pratt has a Masters Degree in Christian Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He speak about apologetics at Cornerstone Baptist Church, in Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S.A and blogs about Apologetics at “Tough Question answered.” (Where he tackles heavy apologetical issues)Â This article is an evaluation and an analysis of the above mentioned article he has written. As a student of Apologetics wherein logic is considered one of the things that we “major” on, I will attempt here to dissect his arguments and try to analyse from a logical standpoint if he made a good argument with regards to his position on the issue.
In trying to answer the question, “Is God subject to Logic ?,†the author presents several arguments and conclusions. I will try to break down each and analyze how the author builds his arguments to reach his final conclusion and how he explains objections to his arguments.
First, he makes a supporting argument. He builds this supporting argument with premises to support his first conclusion that is that “Logic is undeniable.†An analysis of the author’s arguments can be presented syllogistically as follows:
Premise 1 : Logic is the study of right reason
Premise 2 : The foundation of “Right reason†is embodied in three laws which is described as follows:
a.) The Law of non-contradiction – This law states that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense.
b.) The law of excluded middle – The law states that a thing is either A or non-A.
c.) The law of identity – This law states that if a thing is A, then it is A.
These three laws are undeniable
Conclusion : Thus all logic is undeniable
After he lays the foundation he continues to build his argument and takes the conclusion from his supporting argument to make it the first premise of his main argument. His main argument is presented syllogistically as follows:
Premise 1 : Since logic is undeniable then everything and everyone
must be subject to it.
Premise 2 : Everything and every one includes God.
Conclusion : Hence God is subject to logic.
The conclusion “God is subject to logic†seems to present God in a somehow limited way. As Christians we believe that God is all-powerful and one of His attributes is omnipotence, the quality of having unlimited or having very great power. As such, God should not be made “subject†or be “limited†to anything. To somehow address this objection to the seeming conflicting conclusion he reached in his main argument, he makes a “side argument,†an argument that is not essential to support his main argument but is somehow necessary in order to clarify the conclusion of his main argument. This side argument can be syllogistically presented as follows:
Premise 1 : Logic is part of the nature of God
Premise 2 : The nature of God “limits†Him. Logic is synonymous with rationality
and God in a sense is limited with rationality in the same way he is limited with his other attributes such as goodness, beauty or holiness. Logic is built into God as part of His nature. It is not a force outside of Him.
Premise 3 : Hence, in this sense God is “subject to†or “limited by logic†as He
cannot deny himself
The author argues using deduction in the classic syllogistic format. Considering that the premises and the conclusions are true and the premises support the conclusions then the above arguments are valid and since the arguments above are valid and all the premises are true then all of them are sound.
To emphasize how important his “side argument†is he makes another argument which is presented syllogistically as follows:
Premise : Without the laws of logic, (from the perspective of human beings) God
could exist and not exist, could be good and evil and so forth.
Conclusion : Logic is essential to our knowing God as without it humans could never know anything about God. Christians who denigrate logic are, in effect, denigrating the foundational tools that we have to know anything about God.
Considering that the conclusion cannot be known with absolute certainty (As God sometimes reveals himself beyond what is logical through miracles, signs and wonders) this makes the above argument inductive argument. More specifically, this type of inductive argument is a “casual inference†as the author claims that without logic the effect is that we would not know God for who he really is. In the above inductive argument since the premise is true as it meets the total evidence requirement and the argument is strong hence it is cogent.
The last part of the article addresses another objection in which the author makes addresses this through another “side argument.†Again, this argument is not essential to support his main argument but is somehow necessary in order to clarify the conclusion of his main argument. This side argument counters the erroneous conclusion that “If God is logical then He cannot do the impossible.†What is unique about how the author counteracts this argument is by demonstrating to us the weakness of the objector’s argument. The objection raised is syllogistically presented as follows:
Premise 1 : Doing impossible things are illogical
Premise 2 : God cannot be illogical
Premise 3 : Hence God cannot do the impossible
The author points out that the misunderstanding comes from the word “impossible.†According to the Bible God may do what is impossible for human beings to do. Therefore this makes the first premise false.
Doing an analysis of the objector’s argument, we can find that such is a deductive argument in the classic syllogistic format. Assuming that the premises are true, in light of this assumption we can see that the conclusion cannot be false hence the argument is valid. However even if the argument is valid, since the first premise is actually false, the argument is not sound. The author could have further strengthened his argument against the objector’s argument by pointing this out. However in fairness to him, he has successfully debunked the objection through another route that is by pointing out a specific logical fallacy.
Sources:
A Concise Introduction to Logic (9781305958098): Patrick J. Hurley, Lori Watson: Books.†n.d. Accessed March 21, 2018, http://www.cengage.com, Chapter 1, Sec. 1.3, 1.4
Pratt, Bill “Is God subject to Logic†(September 13, 2010)
גחכשךגחכשחגכשחגףכלחשגכש
Hi ! my name is Zigfred Diaz. Thanks for visiting my personal blog ! Never miss a post from this blog. Subscribe to my full feeds for free. Click here to subscribe to zdiaz.com by Email
You may also want to visit my other blogs. Click here to learn more about great travel ideas.
Leave a Reply