God as the foundation of logic (logos)

[Vilferatus]

God as the Foundation of Logic

Thesis

God is the ultimate foundation of logical truth and rational inference.

By “foundation,” I mean that logical truths are not merely human conventions or contingent features of our minds, but have an objective and necessary basis in reality. The question is whether that basis is ultimately grounded in God.

I am interested in debating this question philosophically, rather than assuming the conclusion from biblical authority.

The central question

If logical principles are objectively true and necessarily valid—for example:

- A proposition cannot be both true and false in the same respect at the same time.
- If A = B and B = C, then A = C.
- Contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense.

then what ultimately accounts for the necessity, universality, and objectivity of these principles?

My position is that God provides the ultimate foundation for them.

The challenge

I would like someone who disagrees to defend an alternative account.

For example:

1. Are logical truths necessary independently of God?
2. If so, in what sense are they “necessary”?
3. What is the ontological status of logical truths?
4. Why should these truths apply universally to reality rather than merely describe the way human minds reason?
5. If logic exists independently of God, does this mean that there is something necessary and fundamental that God did not establish or create?
6. If logic is instead grounded in God's nature, does that make logic arbitrary, or is God's nature necessarily logical?

I am particularly interested in whether a non-theistic account can explain the objectivity and necessity of logic without ultimately treating logical laws as brute facts.

Important clarification

I am not arguing that “God exists because logic exists.”

That would be circular.

Rather, I am asking whether, assuming objective and necessary logical truths, theism provides a better metaphysical explanation for their existence and applicability than competing accounts.

I am also not assuming that the Christian doctrine of God is automatically correct. A successful objection to my argument would need to address the philosophical claim itself.

The goal is not to prove who can quote more authorities, but to determine which worldview provides the most coherent explanation of the logical structure of reality.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #31]

@Vilferatus, you might be disappointed because the Bible doesn't answer very many philosophical questions. I almost majored in philosophy in college but instead had to learn the humility to accept the presence of many unsolved mysteries, the solutions of which the Bible does not give.

Im not disappointed, I know why is not in the bible. The bible is a man made compilation of writings that were commanded by God. The problem happend when the politicians and the catholic church took them and deliberate to decide whats canon and whats not.

But thats why God provided a restoration of everything, that is prophecized in the bible itself. They should´ve got rid of that part if they didnt want us to know that truth.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #41]

Here is an interesting article about the criteria of the accepted books of the Bible from quora.com, @Vilferatus; ultimately, I believe that the Holy Spirit guided the church to accept them.

The New Testament developed by common usage.

Justin Martyr declared that there were only four gospels somewhere around 120–150 AD, Tatian compiled the four canonical gospels into a harmony named the Diatessaron about 20–40 years later, the heretic, Marcion, produced a list which included edited versions of Luke’s gospel and 10 of Paul’s letters in 144 AD.

The next step was that an unknown writer compiled a list known as the Muratorian Canon or Muratorian Fragment in around 150 AD, in which most of the current New Testament books were listed as accepted by the churches in Rome. Among those omitted were both letters of Peter, Hebrews, II or III John and James. Those included in the list which didn’t make it into the “final cut” were The Apocalypse of Peter and The Wisdom of Solomon. This writer allowed that Christians could read The Shepherd of Hermas, but made it clear that it was not canonical because it was written long after the apostles, and also specifically rejected a number of recent gnostic texts which purported to be Christian.

By the early 4th century, common usage had made 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament we had today canonical. By that time the five books not included on the Muratorian list were accepted in most circles, and there was still some debate about The Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd of Hermas, and, in some circles, The Didache and The Diatessaron which some Middle Eastern churches preferred to the canonical gospels.

However, there wasn’t a truly definitive list even then. It was just what everyone accepted. There wasn’t a debate over canon at Nicea: the issues were interpretation, not canon.

In 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria sent out a Festal Letter listing the 27 books of the present New Testament as canonical; as a concession, he also allowed that new converts could read the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, but he made it clear that they were not canonical works. A little later, in 397, the Council of Carthage produced a list of what was read in the churches of the area, which it intended to send to Rome for ratification (Carthage was a local Council without universal significance).

The other decisions which finally determined the New Testament canon were —

Rome: local Council 382, Councils of Hippo and Carthage 393 and 397, Council of Florence 1442, Council of Trent (re-affirmation) 1545
Orthodox Trullian 692
Church of England 39 Articles 1563
Reformed: Westminster Confession 1647 and other documents of around the same era.

Of course, the point is that the New Testament was settled by common usage well before any council, conference, or declaration made it official.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #41]

Here is an interesting article about the criteria of the accepted books of the Bible from quora.com, @Vilferatus; ultimately, I believe that the Holy Spirit guided the church to accept them.

The New Testament developed by common usage.

Justin Martyr declared that there were only four gospels somewhere around 120–150 AD, Tatian compiled the four canonical gospels into a harmony named the Diatessaron about 20–40 years later, the heretic, Marcion, produced a list which included edited versions of Luke’s gospel and 10 of Paul’s letters in 144 AD.

The next step was that an unknown writer compiled a list known as the Muratorian Canon or Muratorian Fragment in around 150 AD, in which most of the current New Testament books were listed as accepted by the churches in Rome. Among those omitted were both letters of Peter, Hebrews, II or III John and James. Those included in the list which didn’t make it into the “final cut” were The Apocalypse of Peter and The Wisdom of Solomon. This writer allowed that Christians could read The Shepherd of Hermas, but made it clear that it was not canonical because it was written long after the apostles, and also specifically rejected a number of recent gnostic texts which purported to be Christian.

By the early 4th century, common usage had made 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament we had today canonical. By that time the five books not included on the Muratorian list were accepted in most circles, and there was still some debate about The Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd of Hermas, and, in some circles, The Didache and The Diatessaron which some Middle Eastern churches preferred to the canonical gospels.

However, there wasn’t a truly definitive list even then. It was just what everyone accepted. There wasn’t a debate over canon at Nicea: the issues were interpretation, not canon.

In 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria sent out a Festal Letter listing the 27 books of the present New Testament as canonical; as a concession, he also allowed that new converts could read the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, but he made it clear that they were not canonical works. A little later, in 397, the Council of Carthage produced a list of what was read in the churches of the area, which it intended to send to Rome for ratification (Carthage was a local Council without universal significance).

The other decisions which finally determined the New Testament canon were —

Rome: local Council 382, Councils of Hippo and Carthage 393 and 397, Council of Florence 1442, Council of Trent (re-affirmation) 1545
Orthodox Trullian 692
Church of England 39 Articles 1563
Reformed: Westminster Confession 1647 and other documents of around the same era.

Of course, the point is that the New Testament was settled by common usage well before any council, conference, or declaration made it official.

Look at what your own text explicitly states:

1. You admitted that early lists omitted major books like Peter, Hebrews, and James, while including books that didn't make the 'final cut' like the Wisdom of Solomon [3.4]. That is human selection, not divine unity.

2. You admitted that it wasn't a universal voice, but local councils like Carthage (which your text calls 'a local Council without universal significance') and regional bishops like Athanasius making concessions to historical documents.

3. You admitted that the final, closed definition didn't officially happen until centuries later, heavily driven by political and ecclesiastical institutions like the Council of Trent in 1545.

Your text literally proves my point: The problem happened when politicians and religious institutions took these writings and deliberated over centuries to decide what was 'canon' and what was 'heresy' based on their own regional and historical contexts.

But you completely ignored the most important part of my argument: The Bible itself explicitly prophecized that there would be an apostasy and a final restoration of all things. So why do you believe that the current bible is true and divine, but you dont believe that God can restore it as He prophecized He would in the bible?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #43]

I agree, @Vilferatus, that human decisions and discussions were involved and that fallible humans were involved.

However, I believe that God guided the process to overcome such human motives to preserve his inspired Word.

In Scripture, he inspires weak, fallible people to write his teachings and history in spite of their weaknesses. He puts a high estimate on his Word. Look at Psalm 119, for example.

Not only did God inspire the prophets and apostles to write his Word, but he also preserved it, since the Bible is by far the best-preserved ancient document of all.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #43]

I agree, @Vilferatus, that human decisions and discussions were involved and that fallible humans were involved.

However, I believe that God guided the process to overcome such human motives to preserve his inspired Word.

In Scripture, he inspires weak, fallible people to write his teachings and history in spite of their weaknesses. He puts a high estimate on his Word. Look at Psalm 119, for example.

Not only did God inspire the prophets and apostles to write his Word, but he also preserved it, since the Bible is by far the best-preserved ancient document of all.

I agree with you, and still, that doesnt make any difference about the validity of my statement.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #1]

1. Are logical truths necessary independently of God?

I can't know if I don't know what the god in question actually exists.

What does not exist can't be dependent or independent of logical truths, or anything at all.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #1]

3. What is the ontological status of logical truths?

They are human concepts.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #1]

[quote
4. Why should these truths apply universally to reality rather than merely describe the way human minds reason?
[/quote]

I can't think of a reason.
I will go with " I don't know".

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #1]

5. If logic exists independently of God, does this mean that there is something necessary and fundamental that God did not establish or create?

Yes.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #1]

6. If logic is instead grounded in God's nature, does that make logic arbitrary, or is God's nature necessarily logical?

Yes, it would be due to god's subjective, arbitrary decisions that are "mysterious" to us all.