Response to “Slick Logic” video arguing against TAG

Posted on 15. Oct, 2010 by K. Tanner Barfield in Apologetics

The following article is an exerpt from a debate I had with an unbeliever who presented this video as an attempt to discreted TAG (Transcendental Argument For The Existence of God). I found it quite insufficient and decided since Matt Slick from CARM.org had refused to respond to it, that I would take the opportunity. I’ll deal with each argument at a time, quoting him and giving the time frame that the quotes take place in the video. Feel free to inquire with your comments!

1:20 – 1:54 “Logic Serves two different purposes. One is descriptive and the other is prescriptive.” “Logic is descriptive of the universe…a representation of how things behave, a model of reality” “Logic is also prescriptive for human beings. It instructs us on how to think and how to process in a way that matches reality.”

If we are prescribed logical principles from the universe, on what basis do we assume that how the universe acts is what is logical? One cannot argue that we should act as the universe acts because such is logical without presupposing that the universe itself is adhering to a logical authority. This argument also assumes that autonomously we could all come to the same conclusions by observing the descriptive logic of the universe. If it is not universal and abstract than being logical is whatever I say it is based on my observations of the universe and whatever it is to you based on your observations. For example, when I mix the same two chemicals twice and get two different results, do I *observe* that I did the experiment wrong and messed up some type of measurement or do I *observe* that universe contradicts itself ? This of course is ridiculous and logic is not arbitrary nor is it autonomous, otherwise I could justify contradictions by saying “Well that’s how I understand and interpret  the universe.”

2:23-2:34 “The behavior of existence isn’t informed by logic, it informs logic, and logic in turn informs us.”

My question to someone making a claim like this would be “If this is true could the universe exist and not exist in the same time and same sense?”

In a universe of random chance where anything can happen how come there is uniformity and absolute laws? You also must consider whether logic is dependent on the universe, which I would argue it is not. Logical absolutes are not found in matter or motion and the universe could not exist and non-exist if matter and motion ceased to exist. Furthermore, how do you know that the computations of your brain are logical if indeed those computations are the very thing defining what logic is. This is viciously circular reasoning.

2:37-2:50 “Existence behaves consistently with itself, it just does. Things that exist reliably behave in a certain way and they just don’t behave another way.”

Wow!!! What a ground breaking philosophical argument he’s presented. The universe acts logically and in uniform because it just does? This sir, is not an account for the principles of logic. “They just don’t behave another way..” Well, why not, who or what says they don’t? Maybe because the triune God of the Bible made the universe to behave in a certain way and it is impossible for it to behave any different than how He has sovereignly commanded it to? “NO! of course not, lalalalala *fingers in ears*” says the unbeliever, because “it just does” is a perfect account for why it behaves that way. Now we are getting the presuppositions of the unbeliever.

2:53-3:00 “If you go back far enough there’s going to be a set of basic pre-conditions to existence that just behave the way that they do.”

He is talking about pre-conditions or pre-suppositions ultimately being self-authenticating and all world views have these. I would completely agree with this statement. The problem of granting this is now the unbeliever still has the burden of accounting for how this is possible in a world view that does not allow for ultimate authorities outside of themselves and their observations of the material world. This argument is inconsistent with the conditions of the unbeliever’s world view and in order to make such an argument, he must depend on borrowed capital, the Christians capital. Only the Christian world view can account for such an ultimate authority. It is true that all world views, when stripped to the simplest form, have self-authenticating authorities. This is not a problem for the Christian though. The Christian world view can account for such an authority that say’s that “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 11:36).

4:00-4:06 “The consistency for existence that logic was created to represent is not man-made.”

I agree! But, based on your world view, who or what is making it “consistent”?

3:53-3:58 “Logic is man-made in either world view.”

&

5:03-6:05 “The Christian world view doesn’t equip you to demonstrate that the law of non-contradiction is true” “Nothing about Christianity aids you proving that the law of non-contradiction is absolute” “Nothing in scriptures says that something can’t be A and non-A at the same time. Nothing in the physical universe verifies (logical absolutes)” “When it comes to identifying logical absolutes, (the Christian) is in no better of a position than I am, you must rely on subjective observation.” “The Christian is no closer to knowing with certainty what (logical) absolutes are.”

He claims that the Christian, like the unbeliever must depend on subjective observation in order to identify laws of logic. This shows he simply doesn’t understand the Christian world view. Logic is given to us by the Creator God who himself is a logical being and commands His creation to be logical. Logic and the ability to reason that it gives us presupposes God. He grants that his argument cannot account or justify the uniformity evident by the logical existence of the universe. He then claims that neither can the Christian.

I’m so glad he said this, cause now I can “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:5)

Law of Identity A is A.
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’(Ex. 3:14).

Law of Contradiction A is not non-A.*
But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no (2 Co. 1:18 NASB).

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Num. 23:19).

“A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies. ” (Prov. 14:5)

“For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I the Lord speak the truth; I declare what is right.” (Isa. 45:18-19)

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” (John 16:13 )

“So when God desired to show more convincingly to ithe heirs of the promise jthe unchangeable character of his purpose, khe guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which lit is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope mset before us.” (Heb. 6:17–18)

Law of Excluded Middle Either A or non-A.
He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters (Mt. 12:30).

6:23-6:40 “God’s consciousness, of which logical absolutes are a mere reflection, is itself unaccounted for by your world view”

It is accounted for in scripture which is the revelation of the Triune God. The Christian does not autonomously come to any conclusions, but rather takes “every thought captive” (2 Corinth. 10:5) to the authority of Jesus Christ. The unbeliever depends on autonomy for all the answers to problems within his world view, and it is obvious that man’s autonomy does not have all the answers to make human experience intelligible.

6:47-6:57 “You can’t account for why God exists instead of not existing” “You can’t account for why God has the traits and qualities that He has instead of other traits and qualities.” “You can’t account for why God’s will is effective instead of ineffective.”

Yes I can, God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary. There is no other world view that can make sense of human experience by accounting for metaphysics, epistemology, and moral absolutes. The contents of these things point directly to the Triune God of the Bible which transcends all things. The fact that human’s can be logical, depend on induction, have moral absolutes points to the existence of a good and holy God.

8:10:8:18 “I’m not the one making the argument that things like God’s existence or logical absolutes need to be accounted for in order for a world view to be valid.”

Great! Than why are you making this video? If my world view can be valid without being able to account for God’s existence than why the debate?

8:25-8:47 “I understand that no matter which world view one subscribes too, there will always be, if you go back far enough, a set of basic pre-conditions to existence that just are what they are. In mine it’s what you call logical absolutes and in your’s, it is God’s existence and qualities and nature.

God differs as an ultimate authority in a great many ways than logic does. Logic cannot account for the other unjustified things in your metaphysics, epistemology, and morality. I know the Triune God of the Bible can. You can’t atomize your ultimate authority picking and choosing, you aren’t arguing in accordance with your presuppositions if you take this approach. This attempt is fail.

Why does logic not allow for the properties I just  mentioned? Let me explain. You don’t know what you know because of logic – you think logically due to a sound epistemological foundation for logic. Logic is not self-contained, absolute, personal, and revelatory, it’s a product of something else – so it can’t be final and it can’t be self-referential, it can’t *tell* you anything, of itself and it can’t justify itself so it too needs an authority. God is that authority : )

Logic is not omniscient and sovereign accounting for all things. Logic cannot account for why it is wrong to rape children for fun, or why the past repeats itself (induction). So therefore logic (as well as other immaterial laws and concepts) needs an authority to make it absolute and secure it’s uniformity (and this is where your world view is found wanting). That authority would be the Triune God and logic reflects the rational thinking and character of the Triune God, the character He has revealed to us in scripture. Since He created this universe it is in submission to Him to operate to His standards.

Tags: Apologetics, featured