Epistemological Argument (Can Logic Exist In A Naturalistic Universe?)

Before I begin, I see many people stumbling upon this thread by typing in “can logic exist in another universe”, or something of the like, into the search bar. The thing is though, we depend upon our present logic to even do such thought experiments. The only possible conclusion then would be to say that in some universes, being illogical (to us) is logical. This doesn’t tell us anything though. It only assumes that what is illogical to us presently, in some way shape or form, can be logical in another universe. However, has anyone been to that universe and checked it out? Even if they did, they would still depend upon their present logic and wouldn’t be able to tell if there was another logic! Interesting then how they can be so sure that it is possible.

If what is illogical according to our present logic were able to be logical in another universe, that would be somewhat like recording sounds of nature, such as waterfalls, rocks falling, etc, and trying to interpret what they are saying.

To say another logic can exist alludes to the notion that our present logic can’t be trusted. If logic can be a free for all, then we have no bases for assuming that an apple is an apple, that an apple is not also an elephant, and that anything that is not an apple can’t be what an apple is. Someone might be in another universe using our same laws of logic and arguing that logic can be different in OUR universe. But can it really? How can we even trust our present laws of logic if they are subject to change in other universes? Why couldn’t they change in this one then? And therefore, on what bases would we claim to know anything?

Now to my post…

Paul Manata and Dan Barker debated a while ago on ‘The Infidel Guy’. The infidel guy is a radio broadcast which bolsters a “scientific” and “rational” worldview with Evolutionary, atheistic, and agnostic leanings.

Click here to listen to the debate, or right click to download it.

Here is a statement quoted by Dan Barker (the atheist) which has to deal with ‘logic’.

Dan Barker:

“Logic is not a thing, it’s a function. Just like digestion is a function of the stomach, logic is a function of the mind.”

Allow me to back pedal before we jump right into the confusing stuff. The theist uses a form of argumentation, apologetics if you will, against the atheist which deals with the fact that human beings are ‘logical’ beings. This type of apologetics is called the “transcendental argument” for God’s existence. It says that meta-physical realities exist, which are truths and realities beyond physical matter. For example, compare a rock to the idea of something being ‘right’. One is observable and tangible while the other is not. Both are said to be realities however.

The theist usually argues against the atheist’s naturalistic worldview with this form of argumentation. A naturalistic worldview simply says that nature, matter, and the physical realm is all that exists in this universe. Everything is made up of this matter. The only thing that exists is this matter or “stuff”.

The problem with this worldview is when the naturalist tries to account for realities, “stuff”, which can’t be seen with the 5 senses, such as the idea of something being ‘right’ instead of ‘wrong’. If physical matter is all that exists, then where is the matter for ‘right’? Is it hiding under a rock somewhere? Does it grow in a special climate somewhere in Northern Europe? Of course not. It turns out that the idea of ‘right’ like many other ideas, is simply something we innately identify as human beings.

The ability to identify things is what is called ‘logic’. Using an apple as an example, the 3 laws of logic say that 1. an apple is an apple and not something else like an elephant, otherwise we would be trying to identify an elephant and so forth. 2. an apple cannot be both an apple and not an apple at the same time. Otherwise we could never differentiate between an apple and an elephant. 3. an apple must be an apple, otherwise we are mistaken about reality and can’t identify anything properly and nothing can be known for sure.

So there is logic for you. We use it when we wake up, cross the street, do our homework, and pay our bills. We can’t escape it. We use it non-stop. You’re using it right now to make sense of these words. These letters form words which have meaning which form sentences which have larger meanings which form paragraphs and so forth. There is universal meanings attached to every word so that you can distinguish between what I am saying and what I am not saying. This is logic. It is a process, however, which you cannot touch. You cannot see, taste, touch, smell, or hear the meanings attached to all of these words. You identify meaning in each word you read and every thought you think. You can place the finger in your mind on them, but you cannot place your physical finger on them! See what I mean?!

The theist has a powerful argument against the naturalist when he understands this truth. His worldview gets catapulted into greater consistency leaving the naturalist’s worldview in smoke. This is because the theist holds that our physical reality isn’t the only reality that exists out there. The naturalist says this reality is all there is. The naturalist then, has difficulties accounting for realities which are intagible such as logic, morality, intelligence, and consciousness, all of which you can’t physically touch.

If all that exists is the tangible, how does a reality which is non-tangible come about? Are atheists working to solve this problem? As Paul Manata says in the debate “It’s trying to account for non-marbles in a universe where only marbles exist!” How do non-marbles come from marbles? It doesn’t make sense. They must come from another source.

So again, here is Dan Barker’s response when trying to say that ‘logic’, a non-physical reality, CAN exist in a universe that is only made up of the physical.

“Logic is not a thing, it’s a function. Just like digestion is a function of the stomach, logic is a function of the mind.”

As you can see, Barker is trying to make logic (a non-physical thing) seem like it can be accounted for in the physical. It’s like trying to say “logic is just as natural as organic products.”

Paul Manata (person jumping in water) alluded to what I point out below but it may have been difficult to understand within the fast paced dialogue. I’m sure he would agree to my points.

My Response:

“Barker is simply mistaken. Neuron firings in our synapses is somewhat a function of the mind, but logic is not. Neuron firings are part of a physical process. Digestion is a physical process. Digestion breaks down food, takes in nutrients, and extracts waste that is left over. Logic on the other hand is a non-physical process. It serves our ability to identify things, distinguish between things, understand meaning and communicate.

Logic is not a physical function which derives from the brain, but is moreso implied upon the brain. Neuron firings in our synapses send electrical impulses to other parts of the body telling it how to function, kind of like a twitch. But this is not what philosophers for centuries have meant by “logic”. Logic is immaterial yet is evidenced by the material. Just like the concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are immaterial, yet can be evidenced in a material court room.”

So my argument so far is that Barker cannot account for the non-physical reality of logic (which he uses everyday), while simultaneously believing that he lives in a world made up only physical reality. He wants to have his cake and eat it too, and then have seconds, and then not pay his tab.

In summary, logic isn’t as natural as digestion. One comes from matter, one does not. The naturalistic worldview assumes the only realities are those found in this physical world. The Christian theist believes that there is an eternal God who is more real than this created reality, hence why realities which the physical realm can’t account for are possible. Barker must assume a worldview he vehemently opposes (theism) to use logic. Especially when even saying that “digestion” exists! Digestion is a physical reality, but must be identified as such by the non-physical reality, logic!

Let’s pretend that there was a scientific break through in naturalism and the non-physical could all of a sudden be accounted for in the physical realm. Let’s give Barker the benefit of the doubt for a minute and pretend that non-physical realities CAN exist where only physical realities exist. Here’s the next problem. Who’s to say how logic ‘OUGHT’ to function? That is, what governs our thoughts, ensuring us that everyone else is using the same meanings?! Having meaning is what makes thought possible, and having the same meanings is what makes communication possible. An apple means apple, the fruit that grows on an apple tree. Duck means duck, the animal that quacks, etc. Logic is a free for all unless someone holds the market on what it should be, as opposed to being something else. Otherwise, saying “I love Paris in the Spring time” may make as much sense as saying “gotta who boo boo do” for someone else.

Luckily, logic is not the product of random neuron firings in the brain. Otherwise, nothing would govern logic and tell it which meanings to hold in place. Logic has an ‘ought-ness’ to it. It must identify what it does as opposed to what it does not. Otherwise we would have no way to identify things.

Digestion does not have an ‘ought-ness’ to it. While logic can function only one way, the way it does, digestion can function different ways. Cows digest differently than humans. Some humans digest differently than other humans. No one says that digestion isn’t digestion if aspects of it change. But we say someone is being illogical when they use logic in a different way. Saying “Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh” instead of “where do universal meanings come from?” would be deemed as illogical, while yet the function of letting out a sound is still coming out of the person’s mouth. Unless meaning is attached, there ceases to be logic, and meanings are meta-physical, and must be what they are and never any other meaning!

1. Logic is meta-physical (non-physical).

2. Logic has ‘ought-ness’ to it (it says we must distinguish between things, as opposed to not distinguish between things, in order to work).

You may say, “well of course we must distinguish between things to identify things and thus be logical.” Then I will say, “I understand that we DO distinguish between things in order to be logical, but there is no bases by which we MUST distinguish between things in order to be logical!” You will say, “yes there is a bases. The bases is to be logical.” And I will say, “Ah ha! If logic is the bases by which you are logical then you are caught in circular reasoning. You are making the un-warranted leap that if logic is necessary to be logical then that proves its existence. It’s begging the question. It saying “logic exists because it does or because we need it to.” If logic must exist because we need it to, namely, to be logical, then you have to prove why we need it to. If the only reason is “so we can be logical”, then I will ask “why do we need to be logical?” You will say “so we can distinguish between things”. I will say “why do we need to distinguish between things?” You will say “so we can be logical.” Here we have ended up were we started and no real bases for logic has been provided.

Bottom line, in order to use logic someone has to ultimately determine for us that things need to be distinguished and then give us the ability to distinguish things the way they need to be. It’s like having rules for a game. There must be a rulebook which is binding upon all the players. All the players can’t show up with their own rules. Otherwise there is no consistent game being played, thus no game at all. Do you use universal logic? You are if you’re reading what this says as opposed to what it does not say. Who does the rule book of logic derive from then? Atheists say it happens on its own. Christians say the eternal, living, Triune God of Scripture. Let’s weigh these options.

Logic consists of:

1. meaning - ex. the meaning of “hello” is a greeting. What it means to ‘greet’ must exist. The point is NOT that we greet in many different ways, but that ‘greeting’ means something!

2. The meaning of a greeting must exist as a greeting and never any other meaning, otherwise there would be no meaning to ‘greeting’.

3. We need the meaning of greeting to exist, otherwise we would never be able to greet! The meaning of what it is to ‘greet’ must exist, otherwise we couldn’t do it!

1. meanings must exist (are meta-physical) 2. meanings must never change (have an ‘ought-ness’ to them) 3. we need the first 2 to give someone a jumping high five!

Again, where do ‘meanings’ come from? Further, since meanings 1. must exist (since we use them) 2. must exist the way they do and never change 3. we need them (in order to greet our friends for example). All this is profoundly practical. If these 3 things were not in tact, we could not talk, think, read, write, etc. How is it that all this comes about from atoms banging around?!!! Yet, some atheists would still have us chant the blaspheme challenge!