Atheists Believe the Laws of Logic are Physical!

Atheists Believe the Laws of Logic are Physical!

Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles). Is this logically defensible?"

One of the points of this post is that the nature of logical absolutes is not physical, but conceptual. This is an ontological [deals with the nature of something] difference between the nature of the physical universe and conceptual realities. What I perceive to exist in my mind does not mean that it exists in the physical universe. If I perceive that I am actually larger in mass than the sun, my perception has no bearing upon the reality or lack of reality of it.
This atheist simply states that matter and energy are essential to logic yet he does not demonstrate how they are. When he asks "Suppose all matter and energy in the universe disappear, where then would logic be found?", he fails to discuss the nature or essence of logic and absolutes which is so necessary in this discussion. He mentions the "physical" universe, but does not mention the "conceptual" nature of logic. He ignores the latter and attempts to contrast it with the former without developing a sufficient discussion of the nature of each or how they relate. This is important because the nature of something reveals its characteristics. If the nature of something is that it is not physical and energy, then for him to assume that it is dependent upon the physical universe would not necessarily be logical.
Additionally, he asks questions without providing answers. When I asked the atheist to demonstrate or give a logical reason for the existence of "logical absolutes", I did not stop there. I went on to provide a solution that could account for their existence. This solution is easily explainable in a Christian presuppositional system, but not so easily explainable in an atheistic one.

How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?

1. If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote."
2. The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
3. If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.

We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.

1. For example, we do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time.
2. Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.
3. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.
4. Or, where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?

1. You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how can any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all?
2. The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.

1. In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind.

2. We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
3. If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
4. If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
5. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.

Logical processes of thought, which is what logic is - a process - occur in rational minds, not in inanimate objects. The process of logical reasoning does not occur in a rock or in heat. A rock and heat simply exist without the capacity of rational thought. Rationality, logic, etc. are by default, processes that involve and necessitate cognition. Physical and energy realities are not and have no conceptual processes. They are simply reflections of the nature of materiality and energy. Therefore, they are not the source of logical absolutes nor can they account for the existence of these logical absolutes.

How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?

1. The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.
2. Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
1. God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.
3. Man, being made in Gods image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them.
4. Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.
5. Nevertheless, the atheist might say that in his answer is too simplistic and too convenient. It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.