Argument for God from Logic for DUMMIES

Welcome back to Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and I am delighted that you are joining me for this live episode.

Sometimes people wonder, are we live or is this prerecorded? I do sometimes do my videos prerecorded.

This one is live, and so super excited that folks are here to join me in this awesome discussion today.

Now, I don't have a guest today. I'll be walking through what you have noticed on the thumbnail, but I think it's going to be very useful for folks who are interested in those sorts of topics.

And so before I get into that, though, I am delighted that today,

Revealed Apologetics has reached 10 ,000 subscribers on YouTube. So obviously, there are huge channels out there, but I've been doing this for a couple of years, and that's a pretty exciting thing to have done, and so I'm super excited about that.

So I would like to thank, personally, everyone who has shown their support for this channel. Thank you for following.

Thank you for sharing the material and all those sorts of things, and so I really do appreciate it. It is my hope that the content on this channel has been useful for folks.

It has been a blessing to your development in the study of Christian apologetics, and more specifically, in your study in presuppositional apologetics.

And so, of course, I've covered a wide range of topics on this channel, from issues of creation, reform theology, and related issues like that, but we have focused a lot on apologetics here, and so I hope that it has been useful for folks who have followed my content.

So thank you so much for 10 ,000 subscribers. I really do appreciate it.

Now, in this video, I'm gonna do a deep dive into James Anderson's argument for God from logic.

And so, if you don't know who James Anderson is, Dr. James Anderson is a professor at Reform Theological Seminary, I think over in Charlotte, and he's an analytic philosopher who has been on the channel in the past, and the central claim of his argument for God from logic is that the laws of logic, the fundamental rules that we use to think, argue, and make sense of the world cannot be explained apart from God.

And so these laws, he would argue, and I would agree, these laws are not arbitrary inventions or conventions made by humans, nor can they be explained by the physical universe.

And so he argues that they point us to something transcendent, a divine mind, and of course, he's arguing for God based upon the reality and the nature of the laws of logic.

And so in this episode, I wanna explore how this argument works step -by -step by laying out the key premises and explain each of them in depth, hopefully, in a way that can make sense and is easy to follow.

So the name of this video is Argument for God from Logic for Dummies.

And so I don't mean that literally, of course, I don't, I can't, here's the thing, when you try to simplify an argument, you're going to lose a certain level of specificity and accuracy.

But then when you get really accurate and very detailed, then you can lose people's attention who are not familiar with these topics.

So I do apologize. I'm kind of looking for kind of a middle ground there. And so hopefully by the end of this video, and I do have a lot to cover here, but at the end of this video, hopefully you'll have an idea of how

God relates to logic and how you could use that for an argument for God's existence. Now, I don't typically argue in the exact same way as Dr.

Anderson. I'm more in line with kind of a Greg Bonson or Van Til, and I think that James Anderson is in line with kind of elements of Van Til and Bonson with some frame thrown in there.

And so there is a difference in how I would go about it, but I still think that understanding his argument is very useful for folks.

So I am hoping that this is going to prove helpful for folks, all right?

Well, so his argument for logic, let's get this up here on the screen here. All right, there's the picture of James Anderson.

If you can't see that, it says argument for logic from God, all right? And so his argument basically seeks to demonstrate that the laws of logic, those universal rules that govern all reasoning and rational discourse point to the existence of God.

And so Anderson's argument is built on the observation, not the literal observation, but on the observation that the laws of logic are not physical, yet they're real.

They're objective, they're necessary. They act like thoughts, but cannot be reduced to mere human thoughts since they transcend individual minds.

Now, in line with that line of reasoning, these laws must be grounded, he would argue, they must be grounded in a necessary divine mind.

And so the argument seeks to show that without God, there would be no foundation for logic and hence no way to make sense out of anything at all.

And so that's basically what we are going to kind of go through here today, all right?

Now I'm just gonna make a short adjustment on my microphone. So let's see here,

I'm gonna, let's see here. I need to look for the automatically, okay, there we go.

So I'm gonna adjust this, here we go. And let's

X out of that, all right, okay. So there we go. I'm gonna click to his premises here, okay.

And kind of walk through them one by one. And then I'll kind of backtrack so that folks can follow along.

So now the way the argument is gonna be laid out is actually in line with how Dr. Anderson argued when he was on Tom Jump's channel.

So Tom Jump is a well -known atheist YouTuber. And Dr. Anderson was on that channel and had a discussion with Tom Jump.

And I thought the discussion went wonderful. I thought Dr. Anderson did very well. I thought Tom was very respectful and they had an interesting dialogue.

But I do think that Dr. Anderson did an excellent job. And so here is the argument that he laid out in that discussion.

And so I wanna walk through these premises with you and then kind of explore the details of those points, okay.

So let me go here and we're going to click there, okay. So there are eight steps to the argument as he presented it in that context.

Point one, the laws of logic are truths. Point two, the laws of logic are truths about truths.

Point three, the laws of logic are necessary truths. Point four, the laws of logic really exist.

Point five, the laws of logic necessarily exist. Point six, the laws of logic are non -physical.

Point seven, the laws of logic are thoughts. And then of course, point eight, the laws of logic are divine thoughts, okay.

And that's kind of what he laid out in that discussion and he attempted to try and defend that. Of course, he wasn't able to get into all of the details there.

But hopefully I can expand. I don't claim to be Dr. Anderson. Obviously this is his argument.

And again, I don't typically argue in the way that he's arguing, but I think it's still useful to kind of walk through this so as to understand, okay.

So let's deal with those premises. First, let's kind of summarize again what the argument is seeking to demonstrate, okay.

So this argument seeks to demonstrate that the laws of logic are, you know, those universal rules that govern all of reasoning and rational discourse point to the existence of God.

And so Anderson's argument is built on the observation, as I said before, that the laws of logic are not physical, but they're real, they're objective, and they're necessary.

And that they act like thoughts, but cannot be reduced to mere human thoughts since they transcend individual minds.

And then he tries to argue that logic is grounded in God. So let's take a look here. So the first premise states that the laws of logic are truths.

And so what does this mean? A truth is related to a proposition that accurately reflects reality.

So for example, the statement, it is raining is true if in fact it is raining, okay.

And so the laws of logic, like the law of non -contradiction, for example, are not just useful tools for thinking, but are themselves truths about how the world works.

So for example, the law of non -contradiction states that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.

In the example, it's raining and it's not raining can't be both true at the same time and in the same sense.

That's a key point to keep in mind there with respect to the second law of logic. And so these laws describe real features of the world, not merely opinions or inventions, and they apply universally and objectively.

And so if someone denies the laws of logic, they would end up really in a situation where they can't make any rational sense of reality at all.

And so even attempting to deny these laws would involve using them because logic really underpins all of our thinking, okay?

So think about that. To deny the laws of logic, you have to affirm them because even in a rational denial, the laws of logic are being employed.

So consider the example. If I say a square cannot be a circle at the same time and in the same way,

I'm expressing a truth that reflects a fundamental principle of how things are.

It's not just a matter of my opinion or a matter of human convention, okay? And so these laws hold true no matter who is thinking about them or where they are.

And so logic reflects objective truths about the world, okay?

So the laws of logic are truths. Now, point two, the laws of logic are truths about truths.

And so this premise emphasizes that the laws of logic are not truths about physical objects like tables or chairs, but truths about propositions.

That is statements that can be either true or false. That's what a proposition is. So for example, the law of non -contradiction, again, we'll use that as an example, tells us that a proposition such as it is raining cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.

And the law of excluded middle, which is the third law of logic, tells us that for any proposition, either it is true or its negation is true.

It is raining or it is not raining. One of these has to be true. There's no middle option, hence the law of excluded middle.

The middle option is excluded. There is no middle option, okay? And then the laws of logic can be understood also as meta -truths, meta -truths.

They tell us how truths behave, how propositions relate to one another.

They don't directly describe physical states of affairs, but govern the realm of truth itself.

And so when we reason about anything, whether it's a scientific fact or a philosophical argument or a basic observation about the world, we're using the laws of logic to relate one truth to another.

So for example, if I assert, and this is a famous example that you typically find in like logic textbooks and things like that, all men are mortal.

That is to say all men die, right? All men are mortal. And Socrates is a man.

I'm assuming the law of logic that links these truths together, specifically the law of identity, something is what it is and is not what it's not, and the law of non -contradiction, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.

And so this shows that logic governs the realm of truths, not just physical objects or things like that, okay?

Okay, that's point two. So the laws of logic are truths about truths. Move on to the next, there we go.

Now, point three, the laws of logic are necessary truths.

They are necessary truths. This premise claims that the laws of logic are not just contingently true, meaning they're not true by accident or because of how the world happens to be.

Rather, they are necessarily true, which means they could not have been otherwise. So no matter what kind of world we would imagine, whether it's a world with different physical laws or no physical world at all, the laws of logic would still hold.

For example, it's impossible to imagine a world where the law of non -contradiction is false. Such a world would be incoherent because we wouldn't be able to distinguish between truth and falsehood, existence and non -existence.

If A could be both A and not A at the same time and in the same way, then rational thought would literally break down completely.

Necessary truths are those that must be true in all possible situations, okay?

And so the laws of logic fit this description because they provide the very framework for any rational thought or communication whatsoever.

So whether you're a physicist, a philosopher, or simply having a conversation with a friend, you rely on the fact that the laws of logic hold.

These laws don't depend on how the world is. They are true in every conceivable reality.

And so the laws of logic are necessary truths. Now, let me move back to here.

The laws of logic are necessary truths, point four, okay? The laws of logic really exist.

The laws of logic, again, as I made mention before, are not useful fictions or mental constructs.

They really exist, but not in the same way that physical objects like trees or rocks exist.

They exist as what we would call abstract, immaterial truths that govern how we think and reason.

And so when we say that something really exists, we usually mean that it plays a role in reality.

And the laws of logic clearly do this. Every time we reason about anything, we're invoking these laws, whether we're aware of it or not.

Your awareness of it is irrelevant to the fact that we are actually employing these principles. And so you might think, how can something that isn't physical still exist, right?

That's a fair question, right? But consider other abstract entities like numbers or moral values.

These things aren't made of matter, but they're still part of how we understand the world. The laws of logic are similar in that they aren't physical, but they are nonetheless real because they govern reasoning in all contexts.

If they didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to engage in meaningful thought or a conversation. Now, if I can put a pin on what

I just said there, I am aware of the philosophical position known as nominalism.

And I'm not gonna be addressing this in this video. I reject nominalism, but it is the idea that universals don't exist.

They are just names that we give to various notions. I'm not gonna get into that, but I do acknowledge that there is a discussion there.

And of course, we'd have to hash that out for folks who hold to that sort of position, okay? So point four, the laws of logic really exist.

Now let's move on to point five. The laws of logic necessarily exist.

They necessarily exist. So since the laws of logic are necessary truths, as established by point three, it follows that they must also necessarily exist.

And this means that their existence is not dependent on the physical universe, on human minds, or any other contingent factors.

And so the laws of logic exist independently of everything else. They're not caused by or reliant on anything that exists in the material world.

They are not contingent or relied upon by something else. They are non -contingent, the idea that they do not depend on something external to themselves, okay?

So think of it this way. Even if no humans existed, and even if the universe didn't exist, the laws of logic would still hold.

Why? The logic would still hold. Why? Because they are necessary for the concept of rationality and truth.

Without them, okay, given if we did exist, we wouldn't be able to make sense out of anything. So their existence is essential to the nature of reality itself.

And so this necessary existence points to something beyond the material world as a source of logic.

Now I do, I am aware of the fact that there are people who think that the laws of logic wouldn't exist unless there are people who exist to state them.

And so we do wanna make the distinction between logic existing ontologically and the linguistic language we use to formulate the specific laws.

I think that's important as well. But point six, point six, we move along down the premises, the laws of logic are non -physical.

The laws of logic are non -physical. The laws of logic are not made of atoms.

They're not made of molecules or energy or anything like that. They don't exist in space or time like physical objects.

Instead, they're non -physical, what we said before, abstract entities. You can't touch, smell, or measure the law of non -contradiction or the law of identity and so forth, right?

But you can see its effects in every rational argument and decision that you make. And so consider how you use the laws of logic.

They apply whether you're thinking about a math problem, a philosophical debate, or even just everyday decisions that you make.

You're not observing something physical like a tree or a star. You're using abstract principles that apply universally without being tied to the material world.

And this shows that the laws of logic transcend physical reality. Now, if you think that they are physical,

I think there are problems with that, which again is not gonna be the topic that I'm gonna go here, but if you assume laws of logic are physical, there are problems associated with that position.

Now, point seven, we move to point seven here. The laws of logic are thoughts, okay?

And so this premise argues that the laws of logic function in a way that's similar to thoughts.

Like thoughts, they're both about truth and reasoning and they are non -physical, right?

However, these laws cannot be mere human thoughts, Anderson would argue, because they are universal and necessary.

They apply to all people at all times and in all places, regardless of individual minds.

And so thoughts are the only kinds of things that we know that are capable of dealing with truth, propositions, and reasoning.

Since laws of logic behave in a similar way to thoughts, they govern how we think. They are about propositions and they are non -physical.

And so it's reasonable to say that these laws are a type of thought, but since they are necessary and universal, they cannot be the thoughts of finite beings like humans, okay?

And so I think that's an important point to keep in mind if you're gonna understand where Anderson is kind of trying to point to the idea that these thoughts are not mere human thoughts, but divine thoughts with respect to logic, all right?

Now, point eight, which is kind of his main point here, the main point of his argument, okay?

Let me get over there. There we go, okay?

Anderson's last point here is that the laws of logic are divine thoughts, okay?

So if the laws of logic are thoughts, but they're not human thoughts, then they must be grounded in a divine mind, he argues.

Since they are universal, they're necessary, they're unchanging, they must come from a mind that is also universal, necessary, and unchanging.

And this mind must be God's mind, he argues this. Human thoughts are contingent and limited, meaning that they are dependent on our brains, our environments, our circumstances, et cetera, but the laws of logic cannot be contingent in this way.

They are necessary and apply universally. They apply everywhere and at all times.

And so therefore, they must be grounded in a mind that is not subject to change or limitation.

And only a divine mind, Dr. Anderson would argue, an eternal, omniscient God can provide the foundation for such universal, necessary truths.

And so the laws of logic are divine thoughts, so the argument tries to demonstrate. They reflect the way

God thinks and governs all of reality. So again, human thoughts are finite and our ability to reason is often flawed or limited.

And again, you're not gonna have a limited mind ground these unlimited universally applicable laws of thought that transcend and are true for everyone, that transcend any individual finite mind, okay?

So again, human minds can be wrong, we can be biased, we can even be contradictory, but the laws of logic are unchanging, they apply everywhere and they do not have the features of the finitude of individual human minds.

And so they provide a standard that transcends human thinking. Only a mind that is infinite, perfect and unchanging, like God's mind, can account for such laws,

Dr. Anderson argues. And so the fact that these laws exist and that they function as they do, points us directly to the existence of an eternal divine mind.

And without this, we cannot make sense of how these necessary truths could exist independently of the material world, okay?

So James Anderson's argument for God from logic shows, if he lays those out and those points can be argued, obviously there are responses to these and you'd have to interact back and forth, but his argument for God from logic shows that the laws of logic, which are essential to all reasoning and rationality, point beyond the physical universe to the existence of a divine mind, which of course we call

God. Logic cannot be reduced to physical processes, human inventions or cultural conventions.

There are problems with all those points. Instead, the laws of logic are necessary, non -physical truths that must exist in a mind, a mind that is itself necessary, universal and eternal.

And of course we argue that this mind is God as being an immaterial entity.

So therefore the very act of reasoning and using logic presupposes on this argument, the existence of God.

Without God, there is no coherent explanation for why the laws of logic exist or why they function as they do.

Let's give me one quick moment to adjust my microphone. Just one more time. Let me try this here real quick.

I'm sure I sound okay to you guys. Let's see here. Did it automatically adjust the mic?

Let's try this. I'm gonna do this. I'm gonna do this. All right.

Hopefully that works. Okay. I'm sure I sound okay to you guys, but sometimes my microphone will reduce its volume in my headset here.

So there you go. All right. So let's summarize each of the eight points and then we'll take it on.

We're gonna continue from where that line of reasoning kind of continues, all right? So point one, the laws of logic are truths, okay?

Logic consists of propositions that describe how reality works. These are objectively true statements about the world.

Step two, the laws of logic are truths about truths. Logic governs the relationships between propositions, not just physical things, and tells us how truths relate to one another.

Point three, the laws of logic are necessary truths. The laws of logic hold in all possible worlds and could not be otherwise.

They are true everywhere and at all times. Point four, the laws of logic really exist.

Although non -physical, the laws of logic are real. They play a crucial role in governing rational thought and reality.

Point five, the laws of logic necessarily exist. These laws must exist independently of the physical world or human minds.

They are essential to rationality. Point six, the laws of logic are non -physical.

Logic is abstract and immaterial, not tied to the physical universe or any particular place.

Point seven, the laws of logic are thoughts. Logic functions like thoughts because it deals with propositions and truth, et cetera, but these thoughts are not human thoughts.

And so point eight, the laws of logic are divine thoughts. The only explanation, according to this argument, for the universal, necessary, and perfect nature of logic is that they exist in the mind of God, okay?

All right, now this, when I was going through this argument, what popped in my head was kind of a common philosophical puzzle we often hear in kind of philosophy 101, okay?

Which, again, is very relevant to the topic that we're discussing here, all right?

Let me see here. Now, before I get to that point, I'm tempted to interact with some of the comments, but we do have a troll in the chat, unfortunately, and so I'm not going to take the bait there.

I'm just gonna, you know what? I'm just gonna keep going through, and I hope if you guys are finding this useful and helpful and it's clear, give me a thumbs up, let me know.

I'm gonna try to stay focused. Sometimes I can be a little distracted as I'm seeing multiple things. I got my camera here, the comments here, the slides over there.

So I'm just gonna continue my line of thought. So nevertheless, when I was thinking about this argument,

I was thinking of the popular philosophical puzzle that we often hear in philosophy class, and that is the puzzle.

If a tree falls in a forest, but there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound, okay?

And this ties into the discussion of logic in several important ways, particularly in how we think about the nature of reality, truth, and the role of observers in determining facts, okay?

So with respect to the nature of objective truth, this puzzle, this kind of the tree falling in the forest, challenges whether reality is objective or subjective, whether things exist and events occur independently of our perception of them.

In the same way, the discussion of logic revolves around whether logical truth, such as the law of non -contradiction or the law of identity exists objectively, regardless of whether someone is there to observe them or reason about them.

And so in the case of the tree, the question is asked, if a sound can exist independently of a perceiver, right?

If the tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? Does sound exist independently of a perceiver of the sound or a hearer of the sound?

Does the sound still occur if no one is there to hear it? And similarly, the question about the laws of logic asks whether these laws would still exist and apply, even if no human minds were present.

And so from our perspective and using this argument for God from logic, we would assert that logical laws do exist independently of whether or not humans recognize them or not, or whether they are perceiving them.

I do not believe, for example, that the laws of logic is something that emanates from the mind of man such that if men didn't exist, logic wouldn't exist.

I reject that position. So just like the tree falling in the forest would still produce vibrations, what we call sound, even without someone hearing it, the laws of logic would still hold true even in a universe devoid of humans.

And so I think this reinforces the claim that logic is not contingent on human perception, but is grounded in something beyond humanity, ultimately,

God. Now, the puzzle, this tree falling in the forest puzzle, also relates to the idea of whether mind or consciousness is necessary to give meaning to events.

And so some argue that if no one hears the tree, there's no sound since sound is a phenomenon experienced by a perceiver's mind.

And so in the context of logic, a similar question comes up. Can logical laws exist without a mind to think them?

And so when we argue from, you know, from our perspective, we're suggesting that logic, being inherently mental in nature, requires a mind to exist.

However, it argues that logic cannot be grounded in human minds, because humans, as I said before, are finite and contingent.

Instead, logic must be grounded, as we argued, in a necessary eternal mind, which we say is

God. And so this parallels the idea that the sound of the tree, or in this case, the truth of logical laws, still exists, not because human minds are present, but because the divine mind underlies all of reality.

If you reject the divine mind, okay, then you're saying that logic is contingent upon human minds, which again, it causes logic to lose its universal applicability and its necessity.

And so there's gonna be issues there that we could offer by way of critique for anyone who holds to that position. So this tree puzzle, okay, this puzzle about the tree raises questions about the universality of certain phenomenon, okay?

Sound, as we define it, is a human experience that involves airwaves interacting with our ears and our brain and et cetera.

Yet, does the phenomena of the tree falling involve sound objectively, independent of human experience?

That's the interesting question there. So in the discussion of logic, though, there's a question of whether logical truths are universal and necessary, or contingent upon human thought.

If logical laws are merely human conventions, they might not apply universally.

However, if logic is a necessary truth that transcends human minds, it would function similarly to the hypothetical sound, existing independently of observation.

And so the argument that logic is grounded in God suggests that logical laws, as we argued, are necessary truths that would hold regardless of any human perception or existence, much like the vibrations of a falling tree would exist even if no one is around to perceive them as a sound.

Now, again, this tree puzzle also touches on issues of epistemology. How we know what we know, and we've spoken about that oftentimes on this channel.

If no one perceives the tree's fall, do we have knowledge of the sound? Similarly, if no one reasons about logic, can logic still be known?

And the answer in both cases depends on whether reality is inherently mind -dependent or mind -independent.

And so the argument for God from logic is asserted that while human knowledge of logic requires human minds, the existence of logical laws does not.

And so these laws would exist as divine thoughts in the mind of God, and human reasoning merely discovers them much as we discover facts about the world, like the existence of sound waves or things like that, even when we're not perceiving them.

And so the tree puzzle highlights the tension. I think it's brilliant because it's so simple, but it highlights the tension between perception and objective reality.

And in the same way, the discussion of logic deals with whether logic is observer -dependent, subjective, or observer -independent, objective.

And so the presuppositional argument from logic asserts that logical laws are objectively true and exist independently of human perception, like the tree's falling produces vibrations in the air even if no one is around to hear them, the laws of logic exist and hold true even in the absence of human minds being ultimately grounded in the mind of God.

And so this underlines the broader philosophical principle that truth and logic are not contingent on human observers, but are woven into the fabric of reality by the divine mind.

And so in this way, Anderson's argument, to get back to Anderson's argument, shows, if successful, that without God, we cannot account for the very laws that make reasoning possible.

And these laws are best understood as divine thoughts reflecting the perfect, unchanging nature of God himself.

And this is why logic points us to the existence of a necessary divine being.

Now, again, I don't argue in the same way that he does here.

I'm kind of iffy about just this point to a God. I do like to argue more specifically with respect to the triune

God. So my argument would be different, but there would be similarities. Obviously, I think that the immaterial nature of logic is connected and grounded by an immaterial

God who grounds them. I think that God is the ground of all derivative facts, things that are derived from things more primitive.

God is the foundation of those things from my perspective. Now, getting back to the argument though, it talks about propositions and things like that.

Let's examine the philosophical problems surrounding propositions and their existence. Propositions are statements or claims that can be true or false.

So the sky is blue, or two plus two equals four. They are fundamental to reasoning, fundamental to communication and logic.

And so when we evaluate how propositions exist, there are a few positions one could hold.

And this came up in the debate between James Anderson and Tom Jump.

One, propositions don't exist at all. You could hold that position. Two, propositions exist as concrete physical entities, so it reduces to something physical.

Or three, propositions exist as abstract non -physical entities. And each of these have important implications on how we understand truth, meaning, and the nature of reality, particularly when we consider their relation to God.

And so let's explore some of these options. Point one, propositions don't exist at all.

That's an option for someone. Some people do hold to that. Let's remove this here from the screen here. Sorry about that.

So propositions don't exist at all. Let's think about this. To assert that propositions don't exist at all is, again, obviously problematic if you understand what a proposition is.

If propositions don't exist, it would mean that truth claims, such as two plus two equals four, or the earth revolves around the sun, are not real things and therefore have no existence.

And of course, this would lead to, I think, incoherency, right? Without propositions, there's no way to meaningfully talk about truth or falsity.

If propositions don't exist, then it's impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about reality, science, morality, or anything for that matter.

And furthermore, think about this, the denial of the existence of propositions is actually self -refuting.

Consider the proposition, propositions don't exist, right?

This itself is a proposition. And so if the claim is true, it must express a meaningful statement that can be evaluated.

But to express a meaningful statement, propositions must exist. And so therefore, the denial of propositions is incoherent and it undermines itself because the act of denying propositions requires propositions to make sense.

And so in short, denying the existence of propositions would lead to absurdity and destroys the very possibility of knowledge or communication, all right?

Now, what about point two, propositions exist as concrete physical entities, okay?

And again, this is an option that people, they would say that propositions reduce to physicality in some way, shape, or form.

This is kind of a reductionistic view of the nature of truth and propositions. And this position suggests that propositions are tied to physical objects or brain states.

So for example, one might claim that the proposition, the sky is blue, is just a particular arrangements of neurons in the brain, or perhaps even marks on a page or sounds in the air when someone says a word.

But the problem with this view is that it cannot account for the universal, necessary, and non -material nature of propositions.

Propositions are not dependent on physical objects for their existence. For example, the truth of two plus two equaling four holds regardless of whether any human brain is thinking about it or whether there is any physical representation of it.

If all human brains and written records were destroyed, the proposition two plus two equals four would still be true.

If you reject that, then of course, math is not necessary.

It's just a convention of the human mind or something along those lines. If propositions were merely physical entities, they would also be contingent, dependent on physical conditions and subject to, they're subject to change.

They're not necessary. But of course, propositions by their nature are immutable and universal. They do not change based on the physical world.

The law of non -contradiction, for example, doesn't alter based on any particular arrangement of atoms.

If propositions were tied to physical objects, they could not have the necessary unchanging quality that we know they possess.

And so propositions can refer to things that are not physical, such as mathematical truths or moral principles, and therefore reducing propositions to physical entities doesn't really adequately explain their scope or their nature.

And so there's problems with asserting that position. Now, what about the third position?

The propositions exist as abstract non -physical entities. Now, again, I think that this is a coherent position, and I think it's true.

Abstract entities are things that exist independent of space, time, and matter.

Numbers, for example, are abstract entities. The number four doesn't exist as a physical object, but it clearly exists in the sense that we use it to describe reality and make sense of the world around us.

Similarly, propositions like two plus two equals four, or the earth is round, exist independently of whether any physical mind is thinking about them or whether they are written down in a book or anything along those lines.

Propositions then, if you think about it, are immaterial and timeless truths. They're not tied to any particular physical instantiation.

Whether they are expressed in English, French, or any other language, the meaning and truth of a proposition remain the same.

And this view, I think, preserves the objectivity and universality of propositions.

But this leads to, I think, an important question. If propositions are abstract, where do they come from?

What is their foundation? And I think the answer lies in recognizing that abstract entities like propositions cannot exist on their own independently of any mind.

They are inherently mental in nature because they involve meaning and truth claims. And if propositions exist as abstract truths, they must reside in an eternal mind.

So the argument goes, a mind that is capable of conceiving and sustaining all necessary and universal truths.

And so this point, according to this argument, points directly to God. Propositions are best understood as divine thoughts, as was argued before, existing in the eternal, all -knowing mind of God.

They're not contingent upon human minds, but they're grounded in the mind of an eternal, unchanging being.

And this view, I think, upholds the idea that truth is objective and unchanging, and it fits with the classical understanding of God as the ultimate source of all reality, including the realm of what we call abstract truths, okay?

Now, in this way, abstract propositions find their ultimate foundation in God.

So without God, there is no coherent explanation for the existence of necessary universal propositions.

And God, as the source of all truth and logic, provides the grounding for these immaterial entities and ensuring their existence and consistency across all possible worlds.

And that is to say that they're necessarily true. So denying the existence of propositions leads to absurdity, and attempting to ground them in the physical world fails to account for their immaterial and universal nature.

And the argument that Anderson puts forth, I think is best explained that propositions are abstract, they're non -physical entities, and since propositions are mental in nature and exist necessarily and universally, they must be grounded in a divine mind, the mind of God.

And so I think this provides a coherent and I think a philosophically satisfying, in the sense that it is consistent and so forth, it provides an explanation and grounding for the existence of truth and logic, okay?

Now, someone might say, well, this is kind of a God -of -the -gaps argument, and that's not at all.

I mean, we could philosophically analyze logical truths and we could know, based upon what we know about them, and the points that we could argue to flesh out the details as to their immaterial nature and so forth, we are reasoning from what is known, okay?

And then drawing a conclusion based upon what is known, not simply kind of putting God in the gap as an explanation.

So I don't think that that's the issue here. Now, when you talk to atheists or you talk to skeptics, they, you know, the people who disagree with this line of thinking, they typically seem to assume, and of course, it depends who you're talking to, seem to assume that human minds are pretty much the highest form of consciousness that we know about, or whether,

I don't know if they believe in aliens or something like that, but they don't believe that there's a transcendent mind that exists if you're that kind of atheist that rejects the existence or the possible existence of a transcendent mind.

Under this view, the laws of logic and truth, right? Logic and truth under that view would exist only in relation to human cognition, okay?

Or alien cognition if you believe in aliens or something like that, okay? And if logic and truth depend on human minds, then they're not necessary truths.

They're not true in all possible worlds, but contingent ones, true only when human minds are present to affirm or experience them.

And so this suggests that truth can fluctuate depending on the existence or non -existence of human minds.

Again, this point, I think, proceeds by suggesting that if a proposition

P is true, okay, about something in the world, okay, it's true only because human minds exist to affirm it.

If human minds disappear, okay, then the truth of P also disappears.

For example, if all humans were destroyed, the truths we once affirmed cease to exist because there are no minds left to hold them.

This is related to the view that truth doesn't exist unless there is a perceiver or anything along those lines, okay, but I think this leads to an absurd position, right?

Let's take, for example, and I saw this on Facebook. Someone put this example that was commenting on my post, and I think it was a great point.

Ron, my brother Ron, pointed this out. If he's watching, he'll appreciate this.

He used the example of a murderer, okay, and this is related to the idea that truth depends upon a perceiver.

If there's no perceiver, then there's no truth, okay, or logic or whatever you wanna reason, okay?

And so we use the example of a murderer. If a murderer occurs, but the only living witness is the murderer who takes his life, then under this particular view, okay, the truth that the murder occurred no longer exists because no mind exists to know or affirm it.

Think about that, okay? If a murder occurs, but the only living witness is the murderer who takes his life, then under that view, the truth that the murder occurred no longer exists because no mind exists to affirm it, and this absurdity

I think is deepened if a video of the murderer is found. If people see the video, the truth of the murder reappears, but if all people die, the truth of the murder disappears, right?

So now if this scenario were true, then truth would no longer be a reflection of objective reality, what actually happened, but instead would be contingent on whether human minds are present to affirm or experience it.

And so I think this undermines the nature of truth itself, suggesting that if no one observes or knows something, it didn't happen.

And of course that's, I think, ridiculous. Like the classical philosophical problem of whether a tree falling in the forest without anyone around, whether it makes a sound.

You see how that's related and connected there. So the view that truth only exists only if there are human minds to perceive it,

I think is incoherent. But in the Christian world, God, the Christian worldview, God is the omniscient, all -seeing eye, which was mentioned by my brother

Ron here. I thought that was a cool way of him putting it. Made me think of like Lord of the Rings. He said that God is the omniscient, all -seeing eye, meaning truth does not depend on the

Christian worldview, on human minds, but on God's infinite mind. God knows all truths, even if no humans are aware of them.

And so for truth to exist in a meaningful and objective sense, God must exist. If we deny

God, then we're left with the absurd conclusion that truth fluctuates with the presence or absence of human minds.

And so if truth, then God, if we can summarize that really quick. So it boils down to that, right?

Either truth about something exists, or whether, I'm sorry, whether truth about something depends on human minds, and so it's contingent and unstable, or God exists as the necessary grounding for objective truth.

Since the idea that truth is contingent upon human minds leads to absurd consequences, such as truth ceasing to exist when humans do, the argument suggests that the only coherent way to understand truth is if God does in fact exist.

All right? Okay, so there's, again, not for dummies, but hopefully it makes a little sense if you're following along, all right?

Now, I do have a lot of activity in the comments section. I don't see anything, questions here, so maybe

I could take a few questions here. All right. And I hope I didn't go through that too quickly.

All right, so let's take some questions here. Nate Werner says, hi, Eli, would you be willing to interview some non -presuppositional apologists and ask them why they aren't pre -supped?

It depends, it depends who we're talking about. There are some people that are, I mean, a discussion would be helpful, and others,

I don't know how helpful it would be, but I mean, I am open to it. So, yeah, thank you for your question. Let's see here.

Thank you, thank you. All right, oh, yes, our good friend

Nick Jones is here. Oh, I forgot, because Nick reminds me, I forgot to talk about my courses.

So, in honor of Nick Jones, if you're looking to support Revealed Apologetics by a little more than subscribing, you can support

Revealed Apologetics by going to revealedapologetics .com. There is a donate button. You could donate if you've been blessed by this channel.

And of course, you can, the suggestion comes straight from Nick Jones. You can purchase one of my courses, and that's a great way to learn apologetics in a more structured way, and to support

Revealed Apologetics. So, thank you, Nick, for just appearing in the comments section. It reminds me to give that reminder, so I appreciate it.

Let's see here. Let's see. Let's see if we can get a real question.

Yeah, okay, so I'm not gonna interact with him too much, but here, this pops up all the time. So, Nick Jones, and I'm being serious.

I'm not joking around now. He says, please present credible evidence that I will meet

Jebus, okay, no, Jesus, okay? Now, again, this is, I think, one of the reasons why

Nick, and I won't interact with him past this, okay? I mean, sometimes he'll say something, and I'm like, yeah, that might be interesting to, most of what he says is just trolling.

So, sorry, Nick. It's hard to interact with you when it looks like you're trolling.

So, if you're going to troll, my suggestion to you is to not look like you're trolling.

Otherwise, you're just gonna be ignored for the first part. But every now and then, you say something that I'm like, hey, that's a good thing.

So, Nick says, please present credible evidence that I will meet Jebus. Now, for those who have followed my channel and have seen

Nick in the comments, are you convinced that Nick, given his past behavior, is interested in evidence?

It is clear that he is not at all interested in evidence, much less credible evidence, whatever that means, okay?

What is credible evidence? Now, folks who watch my channel, obviously, we've discussed the nature of evidence and presuppositions and worldviews and things like that.

We need to recognize, if we can use this as kind of a staple example, what is credible evidence, what counts as credible evidence, will be based upon what?

Your worldview, your presuppositions, right? What you deem credible or incredible is going to be itself worldview -dependent.

And so, if you are interacting with Nick in other contexts, this is why we address the worldview.

Because if you just spit out quote -unquote evidence, whatever that means, because the nature of evidence is worldview -dependent, then you're not going to address the main reason why there's disagreement.

And the disagreement really is because of different presuppositions and different worldview perspective. I mean, think about this.

What you think is possible or impossible is itself a reflection of your metaphysical outlook. And so, when someone says present credible evidence, they are not acknowledging the vital role of presuppositions and worldviews.

So, that's why when you ask this question, Nick, and when you ask the question in the snarky way that you typically ask it, no one's going to want to interact with you, or at least

I won't interact with you in any depth, because it doesn't look like you are asking a question from a place of being genuine.

So, there you go. Credible evidence is going to be dependent on worldview, presupposition, and so forth.

All right? So, there you go. So, for folks who are interested in how one might respond to the question of, where is your credible evidence?

That's why we talk about the importance of worldview perspective. All right? Okay. Well, thank you,

Nick. I do, all joking aside, I do appreciate you nonetheless, when you're not being a troll.

Sometimes you have something helpful and we can interact with a little bit.

Let's see here. Okay, I don't see many questions.

There's a lot of interaction, which is fine. That's perfectly fine. Just going to go through this quick. Reality is reality.

Okay. So, it doesn't look like there are many questions. All right.

Okay. Gee whiz. Yeah, okay. All right.

So, there are no questions, but I have some interesting comments here.

Okay. Okay, there we go.

Oh, okay. So, well, thank you so much, Aaron, for your $20 Super Chat. I really appreciate that. Here's a little something -something on your

Lambo payment. Yes, thank you. Here's a little something on your Lambo payment, you charlatan.

Congrats on 10 ,000 subscribers. Thank you so much, Aaron. I do appreciate it. And I appreciate the humor, for crying out loud.

Sometimes, it's not worth getting upset over, right? Obviously, people are gonna disagree with me are gonna disagree.

But there's a difference between believing something, which I believe Christianity is true. I believe the transcendental argument is good.

I believe the stuff that I'm talking about. There's a difference between believing something and being a charlatan, right?

Obviously not a charlatan. I believe what I'm saying. And obviously, there are people who disagree. So, there you go.

So, I do appreciate it. I'm not quite there on the Lambo payment, but one super chat at a time, we'll get there.

So, thank you so much, Aaron. I appreciate it. All right, well, I don't see any questions.

Let's see. I don't see any questions, a couple of insults, and indirect, there we go.

All right, well, with that said, then, I'm going to end the live video here, okay?

Thank you, Aaron. Aaron says, I love the channel. I very much appreciate everyone who has taken the time to listen to my content over the years.

And we're at 10 ,000 subscribers now, but hopefully, by God's grace, things will grow and pick up even more.

And it's really exciting. So, I appreciate all of you guys. And I do apologize if I've missed any of the questions.

I didn't do that on purpose, okay? There's another thing. If you ask a question in the comments, and it looks like it disappeared,

I don't ever erase comments. So, I don't know if that's a

YouTube thing or a StreamYard thing. So, I do apologize if I miss a question. I definitely don't do that on purpose, and I definitely don't delete things that are posted.

So, all right, well, with that said, guys, thank you so much. I do appreciate everyone in the comments, and I appreciate those who have followed along.