Logic and Morality

Logic and Morality

Logic and morality go hand and hand. You can’t have morality without logic. Everything we do requires the use of logic, no matter what it is. To write this paper requires logic; for you to read this paper and understand it, requires logic. No matter what the task, we cannot escape logic. Logic transcends time and space. Its existence is not confined to the physical universe. Why is logic necessary? Why must everyone use it? Can we effectively function in a universe without logic? Without Logic, it would be impossible for anything to be possible, except anything not being possible. In this paper we will answer these questions; and see how morality ties into logic for the purpose of pointing us to the existence of God.

Logic

Logic is a real incorporeal entity conceptually existing inside the mind. The qualities/laws of logic cannot be observed in the physical universe. We cannot observe the law of “non- contradiction” A being A and not A at the same time. Laws of logic are different from per say laws of physics, which can be demonstrated, i.e., the law of gravity. We can see through repeated experiments that what goes up must come down. Laws of logic are not contingent upon anything in the physical universe for its existence. Well, how do we know this? Logic is immaterial, not made up of matter. Logic is what we would consider to be supernatural transcending time and space. Therefore, the physical universe does not have the means to quantify logic, let alone be responsible for its existence. There are those who say that logic is the by-product of the human mind; but this can’t be true, because our minds contradict each other and laws of logic are always true.

Three laws of logic

The law of non-contradiction states that, A cannot be A and not A at the same time in the same relationship. This is important, because without the law of non-contradiction, it would be impossible to know anything. Everyone would have the right to contradict anything another person said or did, and no one could say that they were wrong for it. It would be impossible to have rational debate, because there would be no rules of engagement. Imagine a world without a set of objective rules that were always true past, present and future? On a lower level, how could we determine the winner of athletic events without rules? Let’s take the 100 meter dash for example, the first guy across the finish line says he’s winner and the last guy claims to be the winner as well. How could we determine the winner without rules? The truth is we can’t. Without a set standard of rules that were true all the time we could not make sense of anything. There would be no such thing as epistemology because obtaining knowledge would be an impossible feat. It’s been reported that the population has grown to 7 billion people, imagine what it would be like if the law of non-contradiction did not exist. My guess is complete chaos.

The Law of Identity states that something is what it is and it can’t be what it’s not A=A. If something exists it has a particular nature, essence and characteristics. Whatever it is, its characteristics remain the same no matter when and where they are. No matter what the conditions the characteristics and essence of the entity remains intact. The characteristics of ‘it” can never contradict itself, because the things pertaining to “it” are what they are; and are incapable of changing, because they only have one identity. This reminds me of the Malachi 3:6 “I the lord do not change.” The reason God cannot change is because, he is what he is and he cannot be what he’s not. We also don’t change in regards to essence, we are human beings and no matter what we do or say we can only be human beings. Without the law of Identity metaphysics would be impossible. Imagine a world were nothing was itself; it would be impossible to know what is real. It would be impossible to anything.

The law of exclude middle states that a statement is either true or false. I’m a male, is either true or false. I’m alive, is either true or false. I can’t be sort of alive; I’m either alive or dead. Imagine having a judicial system where statements weren’t either true or false. There would be no such thing as conviction, because there wouldn’t be a truth standard to necessitate falsehood. This would be a pretty chaotic world to say the least. Without an objective standard of truth, no one could have knowledge. And without knowledge, we couldn’t accomplish anything. In this day and age when people are running further away from the truth, it’s good to know what logical absolutes are to help point out fallacies in reasoning. Without the law of non-contradiction it would be impossible to have any type of rational debate. Without the law of identity it would be impossible to know what is real; and without the law of excluded middle there could be no truth. With that being said, I hope it’s clear that without logical absolutes life in this universe would be impossible. Now that we see the necessity of logic, I would like to present a case for objective morality in light of logic.

Logic is something that pervades every aspect of our lives. We can’t do anything, say anything, or think anything without using logic. The whole human experience requires logic for literally everything. There is no way around logic. This brings us to the concept of morality. I’m making an argument that morality requires logic and is inseparable from logic. It’s important to note that morality deals with the concept of right and wrong, so this is not limited to lying, cheating and stealing. I would go as far as to say it’s just incorrect information, period. Sin is categorized as missing the mark. Incorrect information only leads to problems. If something is wrong, it’s wrong. Incorrect information ultimately leads to destruction and is a result of our sinful nature. Our ability to reason correctly all the time has been marred. If logic is absolute and pervades every area of our lives, then, morality is absolute. Meaning there is an objective moral code predicated on logic which is a reflection of God’s mind.

Derrye Randall, Feb 27, 2012

Can the mind conceive the inconceivable?

Can the mind conceive the inconceivable?

Is it possible for the mind to conceive the unconceivable? This is a question that I ask atheists all the time. I happen to think it’s a very good question. Though most atheists are not honest with themselves, it’s a question that must be answered when it comes to the existence of God. If something exists, it has a nature, identity and characteristics that are all discoverable. In order for something to be discoverable, it must have an identity that makes it discoverable. If God did not exist, could the thought of him have ever entered into our minds? This is the question that we will wrestle with in this article.

I’ve often made this proposition to atheists in various discussion forums: If God did not exist the thought of him could have never entered into our minds. Conceptually that is. I follow that proposition with this question: Tell me of something that doesn’t exist? Every time I ask this question, without fail the atheist attempts to prove me wrong by answering, not realizing it’s an incoherent question. It’s a contradiction at best. What I’m asking them to do is impossible. This question violates the law of non-contradiction that A can’t be A and not A at the same time in the same relationship. Let’s take a closer look at the question: Tell me of something that doesn’t exist? “Something” exists, so to tell me of something that doesn’t exist is impossible, because “something “exists. In all cases that I’ve encountered they’ve either respond with superman or a unicorn. However, these things are conceivable, because they are derived from things that already exist. Without a real man there couldn’t be a superman and without a real horse there couldn’t be a unicorn.

This leads me to Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) who originated the ontological argument for the existence of God. Anselm defined God has the greatest possible Being that we could conceive and argued that this Being could exist in the mind. He argued that if the greatest possible Being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If this Being only existed in the mind, then a greater Being would be possible (Superman/Unicorn we can think of Beings greater than these). However, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers objected, stating that if the ontological argument were true, it could be used to prove anything. Like those who offered superman and a unicorn as a refutation, he offered the idea of the “perfect island”. I think Gaunilo, like others failed to realize that the idea of the perfect island could not exist unless a real island exists. There is no possible way to conceptually conceive of something that does not exist without deriving that thing from something that already exists. How then is it plausible to suggest that we could conceive of God, if God really did not exist? If God conceptually did not exist this article would not have been written, because there wouldn’t be any knowledge of him. The denial of God presupposes his existence. Can you deny something that conceptually doesn’t exist? To deny that God exists to me proves that he does. If God did not exist it would be impossible to deny his existence.

Consciousness

Is it possible to be conscious or aware of things that do not exist? Consciousness is predicated on existence. In the same manner, adjectives are predicated on nouns. You can’t have one without the other. To be conscious of something is to be conscious of its identity. The fact that we’re conceptually conscious of God is a big indicator to his identity. Whether or not we believe in him is irrelevant because to deny the existence of God, one must assume his existence at the same time. You can’t deny what does not exist because it does not exist.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) coined the phrase “I think, therefore I am.” He is also known as the founder of modern philosophy. Descartes doubted every single thing he could possibly doubt. All of his sense-perception he called into question, until there was one thing he could not doubt, the fact that he doubting. In order to doubt you have to think; and if he was thinking, he had to be “something” with an identity. Descartes’ conclusion necessarily followed from his premise. By way of deductive reasoning he inferred that since he was thinking he necessarily had to be something with an identity. Here is a quote from Ayn Rand a novelist and philosopher of the early/mid 1900’s who promoted an ethic called “objectivism.” A little caveat, she was not a believer and wrote to provide non-religious answers for the world’s problem. It must also be noted that few professional philosophers actually took her work seriously. However, I did agree with this quote from her book “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.”

Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one's awareness of the external world. Some object, i.e., some content, is involved in every state of awareness. Extrospection is a process of cognition directed outward -- a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward -- a process of apprehending one's own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. ... A content-less state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms. Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

In conclusion, we see that conceivability is predicated on existence. If God did not exist we could not conceive of him. Whatever has entered our minds must exist on some level whether it is God or the perfect island. These things are discoverable which is why we discover them. These things have an identity. Identity can be found within itself or derived from something else. To deny the existence of something is to assume it exists. God has revealed himself to us in an overwhelming fashion. He has created man in his own image. As image bearers of God it is impossible not to be conscious of our creator. Romans 1:18: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

Derrye Randall, Feb 21, 2012