Did God Create Logic?

One of the most fundamental questions in philosophical theology is the question of God’s relation to abstract objects, particularly things like logical laws. It seems intuitive to conceive of logic as being necessarily existing, unchanging, and timeless. However, if that’s the case, then it would seem to imply that logic is uncreated. This seems to create some tension with the view held by many Christians that all things which are not God were created by God. So, did God create logic? Or is logic uncreated?

There are various views surrounding this issue amongst Christian philosophers. There are those who reject the view that God created logic because that would lead to an absurd state of affairs. If God created logic, the argument goes, then logic becomes contingent and arbitrary. If so, then God could will that contradictions be true or act in illogical ways - which is absurd. Such philosophers usually hold that logic has always existed and has always constrained God’s power. You’d hear things like “God can do whatever is logically possible”. This view would be unacceptable to any Christian who wants to maintain the self-sufficiency and aseity of God. Nothing outside God - not even logical possibility - limits or conditions His being.

If God is truly self-sufficient, then everything external to Him depends upon Him. Therefore, even logic depends upon God. How, then, do we avoid the problems that plague pure theological voluntarism? The answer is a two-tiered view of reality as a whole, and logic in particular. This has been called the Archetype-Ectype Model. Essentially, we must differentiate between divine logic and human logic. Divine logic just is the internal coherence of the Trinity, and it is normally incomprehensible to the creature. Human logic is an analogical reflection of divine logic on the creaturely level. This is a truly Christian account of logic.

In my book on logic I go into this model in more detail. I also explain how this view is the only one that can render logic intelligible. If logic were uncreated, then it would either be an abstract impersonal principle or a subjective construct of the human mind. In either case, it fails to apply to the realm of human experience. Anyways, you can grab a copy of the book here.

God bless! 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha...
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th...
Read more