And God hath created logic...
Apologetics have brought a new argument, which is the Transcendential Arguments for God (TAG).
logical absolutes which are fundamental objective principles logic are as follow:
law of identity,
1.Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2.For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.
law of non-contradiction:
1.Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
2.For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
and Law of Excluded Middle:
1.A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
2."I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
they are involved in apologetics' thesis.
their arguments goes like that:
1. There are some objective logical absolutes.
2.they are true everywhere and everytime, even if the Universe didn't exist. So they are transcedant.
3.We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
4.People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
5.If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be true.
6. These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world, you cannot measure them). These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
7. But, Concepts require a mind.
8.Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind, and transcedant mind.
9. That mind is God.
10. God exists.
let's disregard points 9 and 10; and make as if that argument was ONLY designed to prove the existence of an infinite and transcendant mind. Does point 6 raise a false dilemma?