Examining the laws of logic as used in presuppositional bullshit.
The claim that laws of logic must be accounted for in order to use them is BS as demonstrated the fact that I don’t need to know how my car works or who built it in order to drive it. Like my car, the laws of logic work just as well for me as for someone who claims they can account for them.
As for the claim that we don’t even have a way to justify our acceptance (account for) of the laws of logic. That is also wrong. Scientists and philosophers do have observations and testing that in every single case show the laws of logic appear consistent throughout the universe, and we have never observed anything to the contrary. So it is by observation and testing that we can reasonably account for and confirm that the characteristics described by the laws of logic can’t possibly be any other way.
Presuppositional apologists are purposefully ignoring our observations that account for the laws of logic and then swapping in a different definition of the word law from the descriptive to the prescriptive – a false equivalence fallacy, in order to claim essentially that laws require a law giver.
The descriptive notion of all the “laws of nature” are distinctly different from the prescriptive legal notion of laws that are prescribed and must be followed. Scientists and philosophers are using the descriptive definition to describe what we see as characteristics of reality. If you claim that the laws of logic are not descriptive like the rest of the laws of nature, you are special pleading. Please demonstrate that while all the other laws of nature are merely descriptions of our observations, that the laws of logic are not.
The claim that a god is required to underpin the validity of, or account for, or even create, the laws of logic, necessarily means their previously had to have been a state of existence that does not require the laws of logic. Please demonstrate that there is even a possibility that such a state of being could exist, and then explain how a god or any other being could exist distinctly under conditions without the laws of logic. The fact that you will not be able to even define such a distinctive being without relying on the laws of logic, demonstrates that your god is in fact subject to the laws of logic, and therefore cannot possibly be their cause.
Using this presuppositional reasoning, it is enough to say due to the impossibility of the contrary, no god can exist that can be distinctly defined without using the laws of logic.
The fact that god who is distinctly definable cannot be the cause of the laws of logic, shows that this world view is not and can not be internally consistent as claimed.
The claim that nonbelievers are borrowing from a christian world view when in fact we are using observation and testing to account for the existence of the laws of logic is wholly unsupported and contrary to our verified accounts of said observations. It is therefore a false claim. Also, the notion that the god who is said to have created logic only needs to be capable of doing so demonstrates that god is not necessarily the Christian God. That claim is a non-sequitur.
The use of false equivalence, special pleading, non-sequitur, and use of wholly unsupported claims individually are sufficient to discount this argument as unsound or in valid. But using all 4 together shows just how completely vapid this argument really is.
