Eli Ayala Joins Matt Slick to discuss many Apologetic Issues | Apologetics Live 0023

Technical Setup and Getting Everyone Connected

Now you can. All right, there we go. So hopefully you get in. All you got to do is just click on the link you can get in. That makes no sense to me. So I'm going to do is email you. Let's see Eli, okay.

Yeah, there it is and Let's see 314 201 because we're live man. Let's see Apologetics live. All right, sent it. There you go. People who are watching this first part of the video going. Whoa, this is so fascinating to see how they work things out.

Yeah, not that exciting. Junk, how could my emails possibly? Because that are junk. Yeah, Charlie spines in. Charlie's in. Yeah, where it says participate. What I would do is take your mouse. I put it over the where the words click here.

And then what I would do is click and. Doesn't make any sense. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I we always have problems.

Well, I got both streams going on my end. Okay.

No, it shouldn't shouldn't. I don't even know what your password is. I can give it to you. No, it's not supposed to be like that. Hey Charlie, did you have to put a password or anything in you. Just click on the link and you're in right Charlie?

Yeah, I just went to apologetics live comm there was to participate here and watch here both links and both links work for me.

Well, just go to apologetics live and click on the link. It should work. Yes. Yes. That is just that's weird. Oh look. I will have to figure it out and I'll type it. I'll text it to you. But let me get because I can't say it over the air.

So, let me try this that should not it happen with you. I don't know what's going on why it's doing that. Yeah, yeah, but whatever. I'll try it. Let's see. You need to know the password anyway, because I want you to start entering emails.

Yeah, you know, I I hear lots of excuses from people. That's what I hear lots of excuses. Yeah. Okay, hold on let's see, all right.

Well, somehow I got in so that qualifies it as knucklehead proof.

Okay, here we go, let's see. Okay, I'm gonna put the password. Okay, I'm typing the password in Into let's see. Where's it say Text. We're always having problems. Oh, yeah. Okay, so here's the password, okay.

Eli is a Doofus. All right. There. I sent it to you. Try that see if it gets it. We're having problems. Everybody else is getting in and you can't even get in. What browser are you on? This is Chrome.

It is carnal. Well, we're not even in yet. Almost isn't good enough. Oh.

There you are. I'm in. Okay. Let me let me hang up. All right, Matt. Sounds good, buddy. That was pretty intense. My life was.

It's all right. Well, there you go seven minutes of.

Logical apologetics, that's how you defend the faith against not working technology.

Hey, hold on a second answering. Somebody said that I'm still teaching the heresy of the Trinity. I said calling my show and let's talk and stop hiding behind a nickname. You know, it always gets me as people like to take shots.

I don't even use the the real names. And you're right, okay. All right folks we are in we've already prayed and There you go, so.

Why Presuppositional Apologetics Is the Biblical Method

Okay. Now what? Now we just talked about like apologetic stuff. Apologetic stuff. What would that be apologetic stuff? Well apologetics includes so much so it depends where you want to tackle it, man.

Okay. So what do you? I'm just have fun here. What do you feel is the best approach in apologetics the biblical approach? Oh, there you go.

It's a good. It's a smart Alec answer. That's what I would say. No. Well, well actually actually it's not I joke I I give smart Alec answers, but there's some truth to that and if I want to use a technical term, but it's true I'm a presuppositional apologist.

So I think that the presuppositional method is The biblical one because when you don't follow the biblical method you say stuff like God probably exists the preponderance of evidence. And we're not arguing for the Christian God.

That's the kind of stuff you say when you use an unbiblical apologetic.

Why is it unbiblical? I'm gonna quiz you man. Let's see how you do. Why is it unbiblical?

Well. Because the Bible doesn't give us the example of defending the faith in such a way where we actually set our commitment to God aside. First Peter chapter 3 verse 15 says to set apart Christ as Lord in our heart always being ready to give a reason for the hope that's in us.

Most books on apologetics focus on the always ready and Ignore that first part that we're to set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts. So it's actually the Lordship of Jesus Christ that governs. It's the prerequisite of doing apologetics.

It governs everything that we do. And so if Jesus is Lord over all Then we cannot set aside our intellectual foundations for the sake of neutrality or things like that.

Well. Okay, didn't Jesus tell Thomas to look at the evidence of the holes in his wrists and then believe?

Yeah, well a lot of people bring that up and what's hidden in there is is an erroneous presupposition. That presuppositional list don't use evidence and we do use evidence. But it's within the context of the Christian worldview Thomas For example came from a I would argue a Christian worldview even though he was inconsistent in his doubt.

So he still have that intellectual background that allowed him to receive and understand The meaning and the the powerful nature of the evidence that Jesus gave him in showing him the holes in his in his hands and so forth.

Well, what about Paul in Acts 17 when he used? Rationality and pagan philosophy in order to get the unbelievers to believe in Jesus.

Well, when you say rationality we talk about reason in philosophy. There are over 20 or 30 different kinds of reason you have Kantian reason Cartesian reason it's the kind of reason that's being used.

And Paul that that same person Paul that's speaking in Acts also speaks about the treasures of wisdom and knowledge being found in Christ Colossians 2 3. And of course he had the Old Testament background and would have affirmed what the book of Proverbs taught That the beginning of knowledge the fear of the Lord.

So when he tried to reason with people it was not a sort of autonomous reasoning. He could appeal to the image of God within man to make a connection. There is common ground between the believer and unbeliever even within a presuppositional framework.

The common ground is not neutral ground. The common ground is actually the fact that both the believer and unbeliever are creating the image of God. And so we appeal to that and sometimes we could use Examples from our experience examples from the world to kind of draw those connections.

Well, what do you do if an atheist such as doesn't believe in God or the Bible? Well, the Bible doesn't say that doesn't say what. Well.

He's denying the existence of God and the Bible says all men know that God exists. So I'll just reject his statement and explore that with him a little bit.

Okay, so if an atheist that he doesn't believe in God and you say yes you do.

You know then what then we need to have a conversation. Because My commitment is to my ultimate authority the Word of God and God being omniscient knows the heart of all men. And so if his word tells me the nature of the heart of man and the fact that all men know God I'm not going to engage in an argument without assuming what God has revealed about the nature of man.

And so I what the goal of apologetics really is to point out. In reality, the unbeliever is suppressing the truth about God in his unrighteousness. And so we'd explore that a little bit. I wouldn't just merely make the statement.

Because we'd have to kind of explore in what way do all men know God.

Okay, so let me ask you a question in what in what way do all men know God.

Well in well, let's talk a little bit about what in what way they don't know God because there is a way in which all Men know God and there's a way in which men don't know God and if you read Cornelius Mantel he kind of explained a little bit about the different ways in which we know and don't know.

We don't know God in relationship and that's evidenced by the fact that on judgment Jesus will say To those on his left get away from me. I never knew you there's no relational knowledge of Of the person towards God.

They never really knew him and Jesus was never in relationship with them. But the way in which all men know God is evidenced in that while they reject him with their mouth they actually live in ways that only makes sense if he does exist and so my job as an apologist is to Point out those inconsistencies within his worldview that as you are common or you're known to saying people act upon what they believe.

But it's very interesting that people say they believe one thing. But they live their life in a way that actually is in conflict with what they say. They believe for example an atheist will say there's no God, but then he'll complain.

When he sees immoral things in the world and so you have a conflict there. The metaphysical naturalist will say all that exists is matter in motion. Yet he will appeal to the immaterial transcendental laws of logic.

So those are those are inconsistencies within his own worldview, which is evidence that we could explore that what he says with his mouth. He actually doesn't really believe in his heart. That's precisely what the Bible says.

Could you repeat that. Because you know, that was. So folks if you're coming in late Elan I we have all kinds of conversations like this all the time. I'm just asking questions that have him go because Eli and I will talk about all kinds of things pretty stuff.

We did today presuppositional ism. We talked about Molyneux's and we'll talk about various philosophical issues and things like that. And. Yeah, I totally agree. Yeah, I use rational thought. I'll use evidences.

But I always presuppose that the Christian God exists one time. But an atheist actually said to me look man, I want you to do a thought experiment. I said, okay. And he said I'd like you to do is, um, you know, just imagine that God doesn't the Christian.

God doesn't even exist. I said done. I'm not gonna do that. We're not going to not going there. I said, well, why not just a thought exercise. I said I cannot violate the Word of God in order to suit your ungodly needs.

It's not gonna happen. And so I wasn't gonna let him do that and he you know, he didn't like that but the whole thing is that I'm not going to and no Christian should Entertain the idea that God does not exist because well to do that is intellectual suicide spiritual suicide as well.

But that's another topic too. But nevertheless, so.

Yeah, I think that's a very important point to bring out when someone asked the Christian to jump into a hypothetical world use. They have to understand that the claim of the the presuppositional is the Christian is not that the Christian worldview is the most rational worldview.

We're saying it's the only rational worldview, right? And you're hypothetically asking us to jump into this other worldview for us by definition. You're asking us to jump into irrationality and then rationalize with you, which is again.

Kind of a contradictory enterprise to begin with. Yeah, it's like saying.

Can you. I want you to imagine a round square for a minute and let's talk about logic. You know what? Well, the very beginning of your whole assumption does not work. And to abandon God as a necessary precondition for intelligibility is to adopt irrationality and then try and argue rationally.

It's a self-refuting thing. You just want to do that kind of a thing. Very good.

Important to also to recognize because a lot of Presuppositionalist will say these kinds of things the Christian worldview is the only rational worldview and then they'll stop there. Because when people hear this for the first time, they're kind of you know What do you mean?

And so it is necessary for us to actually explain what we mean by that and kind of show.

Go ahead explain expand on it. Why is Christianity the only rash the only rational worldview to hold?

Well first one of its truth claims is that it's the only one and when you actually Take a look at the Christian worldview as a system. It is the only worldview perspective that provides the necessary preconditions for for knowledge.

And that's why presuppositionalist tend to focus on discussing the issue of truth. A lot of people don't like to talk about truth. They like to just assume that everyone knows what's true and then argue on that basis.

But one of the key commitments of the presuppositionalist is that we are to begin our apologetical Enterprise by setting apart Christ as Lord. Now. He's the Lord over everything. He's Lord over knowledge.

He's Lord over truth. And so When we affirm that we cannot grant Truth to the unbeliever on their own basis. And so what we would do is show that only on the Christian system. Can you have something like truth?

And that's why you have people say, you know, if if you believe in truth, you know. How do you get truth in your own worldview? That's not a word game. A lot of people think Christians are playing word games there to try to avoid answering questions.

Actually, it's a very fun Logical question. What is truth if you can't define truth within your own worldview? Then how can you engage in a discussion over truth when it hasn't been coherently defined and The Christians position of truth is fundamentally in opposition to the unbelievers.

Definition of truth when someone says what's truth? I say it's anything that conforms to the mind of God. They'll be like wait a minute. I thought truth is a justified true belief. And I was like, well, my argument is that you can't have a justification for any belief unless you start with my God.

And so we're right there at the beginning at an antithesis. We are right there at disagreements over what the nature of truth is. And so what the unbeliever usually wants to do is just pass that aside.

Okay. Well, just give me evidence. Well, wait a minute evidence presupposes truth and with that How do you define truth within your own worldview? And how does your own worldview provide the necessary preconditions to to kind of prop that up?

Because that's logically prior that question is logically prior to any discussion of that. And so I would hammer those things in and show That on your worldview, you can't have it on my worldview. You can and it's the only worldview that can do that.

Presuppositionalism, Evidence, and the Christian Worldview

Okay? Oh.

The Christian Worldview as the Only Rational Worldview

I'll tell you what. Let's open it up for questions if anybody wants to ask anything, but I got more questions I could ask you. Sure. Anybody want to say anything. Anybody got any ideas any comments? You can do it in the uh Uh participation room or in the Video room.

Give them a sec here to do that. Yeah, sure and I apologize if i'm yelling like i'm a teacher. So when I teach my my voice amplifies and i'm not really used to talking through my computer. So.

All you gotta do is relax and everything will be fine. And and because you have a tendency like I used to when I was younger just talk very quickly because your mind's full of information. That it's like, okay, I'm gonna say this gonna say that.

And uh, yeah, but a lot of people don't understand like for example what the nature of truth is. And that's something worth discussing For a while so people can understand so I don't see anybody else with any comments or anything and i'm looking at the Video feed.

Let me see here. Um introduction apologetics being dark understanding read. That's right introduction. There you go. Okay. Okay. Let's talk about what truth is. Because um Uh. You know people will say different things about truth.

Truth is what you want to believe or truth is what is true for you. And not somebody else. Oh, yeah. Somebody had a question.

Yeah, well matt, uh, you you brought up the whole round square thing again and i'm assuming that Eli would agree with you since he's a calvinist, but Eli, I noticed that last week you uh, you did a pretty good job at going ahead and Even though you don't hold to molybdenum.

You did a pretty good job at debating matt slick playing devil's advocate. Uh, would you be able to if you could? Um Even though you may not hold that view. Would you be able to argue that view that god could make a round square if he so choose to do so.

Uh, no, because that presupposes, uh, an unbiblical and illogical view. Of god's omnipotence a lot of people think that when we say that god is omnipotent. That that entails that he should be able to create a round circle.

But the reason why he can't create a round circle is because a round circle is not a thing that can be created. It's it's not a thing. So it's like asking can god create this thing? That's not a thing.

It's just a jumbled, you know mixture of words. And so, um the biblical view of omniscience does not necessitate that god is able to do the logically impossible. Here's a question if god's so powerful that he could strip himself of his own divinity.

Well, no. He doesn't. God doesn't violate the laws of logic. Um, not because there's there's not an external law that he follows called logic. Logic is a reflection of his mind and his thinking he can't violate his nature.

But that's not an impingement upon his omnipotence because omnipotence doesn't entail that you can do the logically impossible. Um, and here's here's a problem, too. People who think well omnipotence should entail that god does the logically impossible.

Someone asked me one time. It's a famous philosophical question. Um, can god create a rock so big that he can't lift? And so my answer is Uh, well, you know, it's a contradictory question, but then they demand well god can do anything.

I'm, like fine god can create a rock so big that he can't lift. I'm like, uh-huh. He's not all powerful. Oh, yes, he is, but he can't lift the rock. I'm like he can lift it and then not lift it. Well, that doesn't make sense.

It's a contradiction and I say well, so was your question. So if you ask a contradictory question, you're going to get a contradictory answer and that's why we affirm that god doesn't violate his nature because.

If he does violate his nature does violate logic. Then you have meaning and truth is all garbled up and you can't really make sense out of anything.

Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah. But uh see the way I I perceive it is that the logic that we understand with regards to the mechanics of our universe our natural universe It's a presupposition to apply that logic to god's nature because we don't know what logic Is involved with regards to god's nature?

We do know that with regards he cannot violate his own nature but I think it's It's wrong to go ahead and logic that's involved with the natural universe Is somehow tied to god's own nature. I think to do that is a is a form of quasi pantheism.

I'm, not calling you a pantheist or anything. Sure. Sure. Sure that I'm, just saying that it it it seems strange to do that. When as y 'all said before and in last week's conversation We're not to know god from a bottom up approach but from a top down approach.

And I think we can only know god from what is revealed and I think for us to go ahead and make a presupposition that God cannot make a round square because it would some like you said it It's something that is uh an absurd idea.

It's it's non-existent well, we don't know that you would presuppose that it's something that's incapable of Coming into existence because it doesn't make any sense. But when you say quantum physics it it's possible even in quantum physics for there to be a round square.

No, that would mean.

I would disagree that that that's that's false. Just real quick just to back up real quick. You said that. It's just a presupposition. It actually isn't when we say that god reveals himself in the word.

Would you agree that the bible is the inspired word of god? I do right. And so if you take a look the god inspired a book with language, right? Yes. Yes, and that language presupposes certain structures of logic, right?

I don't believe that the language itself. Simply focusing on the language and the thought behind it. Maybe the thought behind the word I believe. Well, for example, like when he spoke about the laws of god there was the letter of the law and there was the spirit of the law.

And I think if you equate the linguistics of the language with the spirit of the message, I think that is the same as going ahead and saying that the Logical laws that govern the mechanics of the universe Is somehow equatable to the spirit of god the the very nature of god.

And I think again, I think that's sort of like a quasi pantheism approach.

To understanding god. I don't see how it's example, but i'm having difficulty following your connection there with pantheism. Well, for example, uh.

For example, um. You. It's an absurdity it's an absurd idea for there to be a round square. I would agree but it's also absurd to say that God could go ahead and create this natural universe from nothing.

Because i've heard mad slick and i've heard other.

It's not absurd. Yeah, I don't think I don't think that's absurd at all. And I don't think they're the same. I don't think the creation god creating ex nihilo is violating a law of logic. I don't. I don't think that that's illogical at all.

When you say absurd, I think I I i'm understanding you to to mean that something that's occurred is something that's logically incoherent. Now a round circle is most definitely logically incoherent. But creation ex nihilo is not even if someone didn't believe it to be true.

There's nothing there's nothing in the idea of god creating out of nothing that violates the second law of logic. I can't really hear you your voice kind of muted down there. I'm, sorry.

I'm, i'm, sorry. Can you hear me now. Am I coming in? Yes, sir. Yeah, well the thing is i've heard mad slick and i've heard other apologists even catholic apologists in debates with atheists. Actually ask them.

Well, can some it's actually make the claim that it's absurd when they make the claim the atheist. That something can come from nothing. So it's the christian side that is saying something did not come from nothing.

But god created it from nothing.

But god is not nothing God created so it's not but not nothing from nothing. That's something from nothing. Right, so.

Therefore that same. As since we're talking about logic if we apply that same logic God could go ahead and create a round square.

That doesn't follow at all. I don't see how when you say that. I don't see how that followed from anything. You said here's a question. Can god can god create a being that is completely equal to himself in every way?

No, because that would violate The very nature of god because there's only one god.

But can god violate his nature and not violate his nature at the same time and in the same way?

No, god can never violate his own nature.

I can't hear you. I'm, sorry your voice muted again.

God god can never violate his own nature but making a round square would not violate his own nature is what i'm trying to make the point.

Um I think it is outside of god's nature to perform irrational things because god is an eminently rational being. Anything he does is rational. He's always rational. So to create a square circle square circle is by definition irrational and so god can't do it because god always acts consistently with who he is.

Um, that's like saying, you know, can god lie? Well, no god can't lie. Why. Well because it goes against his nature. Well, if god can come if god can perform Logically incompatible things and we could affirm that it's possible given his omnipotence that god can both lie and not lie at the same time.

And in the same way, which is which is absurd. We couldn't even understand what that means, which is precisely what a logical absurdity is. There's no meaning or content to it. Well, there's numerous.

Phd scientists physicists quantum physicists if you look at some of the videos they have many videos on youtube where they actually speak about uh. The physics the the mechanics of the quantum universe compared to the macro universe.

And they themselves said that you could have two things existing. That are exactly the same one thing In the quantum universe. And they said the logics the logic of the macro universe does not conform to the quantum universe.

But we know that god created the quantum universe and the macro universe.

I would be careful because the phd scientists don't even fully understand quantum events for example. Some phd physicists will say that in the in the the field of quantum mechanics things come into existence out of nothing and that's that's not true even when they say that because the um Cosmic vacuum is not nothing.

It's a sea of fluctuating energy and actually within that sea of fluctuating energy. You have subatomic particles that come into it appears to come into existence, but it's not coming into existence from nothing.

But you have phd scientists using that language as though that's actually the case. And so i'd be very cautious of a quantum physicist talking about, uh, two things that are two things, but also one thing.

Um, even if there were multiple logics, you still need the basic aristotelian laws of logic to even talk about them. Um, which I would argue is necessary because you need logic to talk about anything and to understand anything.

If nature at base is logically incoherent, then we have a problem. How do we get logical incoherence and then move from that state into a state of coherence? If it's the fundamental aspect of reality god being a rational being created the world to function in certain ways.

And because as human beings at least if we're not talking so much about, you know, nature external to ourselves. We're creating the image of god. I would argue that the image of god entails Rationality and the utilization of logic and so when we think logically, we're actually not using a different logic than god.

But we're actually thinking god's thoughts after him and that's how we honor and glorify god in the way that we think. I think there's a connection there when the bible says that we're to love the lord our god with all of our minds.

Uh when we think rationally and logically we honor god because that's how god thinks. But when we're irrational, we're not thinking like god. And so we're not honoring god in the way that we think.

Well, I think when it comes to truths and morals I would agree with you. But when it comes to the logical laws of the mechanics of the universe the physics of the universe.

I apologize. I apologize. You said truth and morality, but then you you said you agree with truth and morality that that's the case. But then you talked about quantum mechanics which presupposes truth.

So quantum mechanics is an element of truth and if truth presupposes the logic that you just agreed Uh holds then any discussion of quantum mechanics would have to include that and presuppose that.

But we have to distinguish the truth the truth that applies to the mechanics of the universe versus the truth that Applies to god and that's that's where I believe that there's a mixing of those two truths that shouldn't take place.

For example I'm sorry. Is it rational for a man to walk on water.

Yes, it doesn't violate any logical law whatsoever. It violates natural laws as we perceive them. But there's not for example a man walks on water. That proposition Does not violate the second law of logic namely that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same way.

There is a way in which natural man Cannot walk on water, but there is a way in which he can Ie divine intervention. So there's no there's no logical contradiction in in stating that someone walks on water.

Okay, so therefore.

I would agree exactly with what you said because okay. You you brought it into natural terms. You made a distinguished distinction with regards to the logic. That applies to the natural universe.

Versus what god supernaturally is capable of doing. But they're the same logic. I don't differentiate between the logics. I like god interacts with us in logical ways. When he manifests himself he's he can't he can't reveal himself if he's using a different logic than than we are because We have a logic that we function under and outside that logic.

We couldn't understand anything. So god interacts with us in his divinity in his essence in a logical fashion. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to understand what he's doing. Your voice is muted again. I'm, sorry.

I'm, so sorry. I can't hear him at all. There you go you're back. All right. I missed what you could repeat what you said. I'm, sorry.

So applying the mechanics that governs the laws of the natural universe. A man cannot walk upon water you would agree.

Without the divine intervention of god. Well, I I have to actually be careful with the use of intervention because I I I don't think laws are autonomous things that govern until god interacts with them.

Um, for example, someone asked me what what is my definition of miracle. My definition of miracle which is related to how I understand laws is A lesser way in which god governs the universe so he functions in a particular way.

That's very rare. And so when it happens, we notice it as a miracle. But god is always in control of everything and so the laws of nature as we call them Are not these autonomous things that just govern the world.

It is the common way in which god governs the world and so I don't I agree. Quantum mechanics have these natures of themselves and then they can produce these irrationalities like logical incoherencies.

Because god is governing uh. Both the laws of nature and everything else. Um, they're always based upon rationality since god is rational as a as a being.

Right, I and I absolutely agree with that. But the norm of the natural universe the logic that governs the mechanics. So the net is that a man cannot walk upon water and as you said before no, no, no, no.

No, I would disagree with that because when you talk about quantum mechanics, you're talking about science and you're talking about induction. We observe. That men normally don't walk on water, but you can't use induction to say look this tells us that man can't.

Can't doesn't belong in science because science does not give you absolute knowledge about something since it's based on inductive inference. Which actually could only get you to probability. Sean carroll who's an atheistic?

Cosmologist says that science doesn't give you truth. He gives you theories that work. So scientists who actually understand science don't make those wide-ranging claims that science tells us that this can't happen.

Science can't tell us that man can't walk on water. Science tells us that normally men don't walk on water. And I think that's a that's a huge difference.

So if we don't normally see A round square and have never seen a round square doesn't mean that a round square doesn't exist somewhere in the universe.

No in that case, we know that a round square doesn't exist because a round square isn't a thing. It's irrational. It's just you just have a sentence with words that have the word round and square in it.

There's no such thing as a thing. Of a round square like no one can look at. Look there's a round square. It doesn't it doesn't exist.

Um, that's like saying what about saying something similar like There's something that doesn't exist, but it also exists that and from what he's saying that that's possible. It doesn't exist. It also exists.

And what does that look like? Yeah, have you ever seen something that exists and doesn't exist at the same time in the same way?

That would be an incoherent. It's logically impossible. You can't have a round square because it can't exist. There's no it does and also doesn't it just yeah. Yeah. He and i've gone over this many times.

So Have adam.

And and then. Scientists, I don't I don't believe in this but they also put forth this whole multi-universe thing where they say that there could be laws of physics. That are completely different from our own universe.

So Just you know. If there are you know other universes out there, obviously, they would all have been created by god as well. And really part of the universe itself. Don't make a mistake of thinking.

Don't make a mistake of thinking that logic and the universe are the same thing or physics and logic are the same thing, right?

I would say logic governs. If there is a multi-verse logic would govern. Would would be binding on all of them since logic is not something that's a property of our universe rather. It's transcendent.