Split from: DV Christians Unite! (Christian Only Thread)

[Universal Mind]

Noogah, did you finally answer my question by saying it is supported by scripture? Thank you for finally answering the question! Scripture. Okay, so scripture is automatically correct? What is your basis for that? I can show you websites that say all kinds of other stuff about why those things exist. Are they right too? Why scripture? You said that other views do not explain things, but you did not mention too many other views. Did you shoot down a few views, in your mind, and then leap to the conclusion that no other views at all could possibly explain things?

[Xei]

Why can't you do this? Let's say I know that I have a blue, 5'x11' vehicle in my garage. I can deduce some things about my garage: my garage is at least five feet high, and eleven feet long. Furthermore, my garage contains a blue object. I may not know the precise dimensions or qualities of my garage. However, if somebody tells me that they think my garage is two feet tall, or that it is a garage that doesn't contain blue objects, I can safely disregard these ideas about my garage. If somebody tells me that my garage is, in fact, ten feet high, and twenty feet long, and contains all the colors of the rainbow, this could possibly be my garage. So, exactly as I said. You can show that a claim is impossible if it causes a contradiction. But there is no such thing as "showing a claim is possible". Before you learned the garage was ten feet high, you thought that it might, or might not, be your garage. After you learned the garage was ten feet high, you thought that it might, or might not, be your garage. You have not 'shown' anything at all. The amount of new information provided by your argument is precisely zero. You could have made no argument at all and it would have given you the same conclusion.

[JoannaB]

If someone said that they intuitively felt that it was their garage, and they had a strong feeling about that, would you be willing to accept that it was more likely that it was their garage than if they said that their gut feeling was telling them this was not their garage, or would their intuition or gut feeling not matter at all in your opinion, and the likelihood of it being or not being their garage remained the same?

[OneUp]

Perhaps reading my post would help? The quote is an opinion. The evidence that Carl Sagan has this opinion is that Carl Sagan said that he has this opinion. This is very different from a quote which makes a claim about objective reality. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Seriously. Hmmm somebody mad just because they were insulted? too bad its life, its not that difficult a concept to understand. seriously. My original quote made no claims, only a comparison. Its not a difficult concept to understand. seriously. You need to think alot more before posting replies like this.

[Xei]

We've already been through this.

[TimeDragon97]

Hmmm somebody mad just because they were insulted? too bad its life, its not that difficult a concept to understand. seriously. My original quote made no claims, only a comparison. Its not a difficult concept to understand. seriously. You need to think alot more before posting replies like this. I posted a quote in which Carl Sagan states an opinion. An opinion can neither be true nor false, yet you asked me how it was true. That's what Xei was saying.

[Xei]

I don't think he honestly misunderstands that. He knows he's been thoroughly shown up, hence the retrogression into his current behaviour; namely sporadically appearing, ignoring people's previous comments, repeating his eviscerated claims without providing any actual argument, throwing out a bunch of very childish remarks along the lines of "you're all stupid", then disappearing again.

[Noogah]

Noogah, did you finally answer my question by saying it is supported by scripture?.... Why scripture? Because my argument regards the God of scripture (the Bible). And, as I explained to you very explicitly, my argument does not begin with the assumption that God actually exists. It begins with the assumption that, if He exists, He can account for the three items around which our discourse centers. Obviously, if God (YHWH) exists, the Bible is His revealed word. Thus, I appeal to the Bible in order to validate my claims regarding His characteristics. Did you shoot down a few views, in your mind, and then leap to the conclusion that no other views at all could possibly explain things? Well I must first say that I did not come to hold this view through logic at all. I am sure Christianity is true. My knowledge of God is, as you say, "experiential". It is personal, not propositional. I am sure of God, because I know Him. The Holy Spirit leads a man to realize the truth of Christianity. I recall telling you (or somebody) this back when I was younger, and it is certainly far truer today. But this obviously is not very relevant to you. My duty to you, after "knowing" Christianity to be true is "showing" Christianity to be true. And so, I am responsible for arguing for its truth, and defending its arguments in a logical way. So to more directly address your question: No views that I know of. It is a very simple task for you to tear the proposition down. Simply describe how there can, without God, be morality, logic, and uniformity in nature. And you might want to start with your own view. Because, while there may be, from your perspective, many worldviews which can account for these things, the more relevant question for you would be: is my view one of them? You have not 'shown' anything at all. If you mean to say that the logical criteria of the garage's nature ensured from the beginning that the idea of a ten foot tall garage was already possible, I absolutely agree with you. However, if a person suggested to me that my garage, which I suppose (but do not know) to be ten feet by twenty, could not accommodate my car, I could "show" to him through the specifications of my car (on which we both agree) that my garage could, indeed, accommodate the car. It is through this sense that I mean to say "show". By your reasoning, Xei, I suppose we could come to the conclusion that there is no "showing" anything at all. If we learn a particular set of propositions which, through proper logical deduction, lead us to any particular conclusion, you could say that the conclusion was never in any doubt. But the point was to get there through means of logic. Because, while logic is infallible, humans are not, and it takes a person to "show" a thing sometimes, no matter how insipidly simple the thing seems. If someone said that they intuitively felt that it was their garage, and they had a strong feeling about that, would you be willing to accept that it was more likely that it was their garage than if they said that their gut feeling was telling them this was not their garage, or would their intuition or gut feeling not matter at all in your opinion, and the likelihood of it being or not being their garage remained the same? I suppose that would depend upon the person, and whether their "gut feeling" conflicted with my own gut feelings and knowledge. But here, I feel like the analogy is getting pushed. What is the real world parallel you are trying to draw?

[TimeDragon97]

Obviously, if God (YHWH) exists, the Bible is His revealed word. Thus, I appeal to the Bible in order to validate my claims regarding His characteristics. Seems rather fallacious. If you're referring to Yahweh specifically, you may have a point, but Yahweh/Jehovah and Allah are pretty much the same god, so what about the Koran? Or what if Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah's "revealed word" has been twisted by mortals?

[Universal Mind]

Because my argument regards the God of scripture (the Bible). And, as I explained to you very explicitly, my argument does not begin with the assumption that God actually exists. It begins with the assumption that, if He exists, He can account for the three items around which our discourse centers. Obviously, if God (YHWH) exists, the Bible is His revealed word. Thus, I appeal to the Bible in order to validate my claims regarding His characteristics. So you are just saying that if God exists, he could have created morality, logic, and uniformity in nature? Earlier, you said that he in fact did. Well I must first say that I did not come to hold this view through logic at all. I am sure Christianity is true. My knowledge of God is, as you say, "experiential". It is personal, not propositional. I am sure of God, because I know Him. The Holy Spirit leads a man to realize the truth of Christianity. I recall telling you (or somebody) this back when I was younger, and it is certainly far truer today. But this obviously is not very relevant to you. My duty to you, after "knowing" Christianity to be true is "showing" Christianity to be true. And so, I am responsible for arguing for its truth, and defending its arguments in a logical way. So to more directly address your question: No views that I know of. It is a very simple task for you to tear the proposition down. Simply describe how there can, without God, be morality, logic, and uniformity in nature. And you might want to start with your own view. Because, while there may be, from your perspective, many worldviews which can account for these things, the more relevant question for you would be: is my view one of them? The burden of proof is not on me. I do not need to present a rival claim to call into question what backs up your claim. You have yet to tell me a logical basis for concluding that God created logic, morality, and uniformity in nature or that God even exists. Even your point that there is no other explanation is something you just retracted. You said that there is no other reason you know of. That does not mean there is no other reason. Again, by asserting that God created those things, you assert that God exists. But now you are just saying that he could have created those things? Then now your argument is basically... God might have created logic, morality, and uniformity in nature. I can't think of another explanation for why those things exist. Therefore God exists. That doesn't work. The initial premise is now a potentiality and not a proposition of certainty, and it demands a basis, which you have not presented. The second premise is connected to the conclusion only by the argument ad ignorantium fallacy. The argument is not logical.

[Xei]

However, if a person suggested to me that my garage, which I suppose (but do not know) to be ten feet by twenty, could not accommodate my car, I could "show" to him through the specifications of my car (on which we both agree) that my garage could, indeed, accommodate the car. This is just conflating what you're showing. We're only concerned with one thing: whether the car is, or is not, in your garage. The proposition is not "the garage can contain the car". The proposition is "the garage does contain the car". In the case of the atheist, you show that the proposition is false. In the case of the theist, you "show" that the proposition is true or false, i.e. you don't show anything of consequence. Disregarding the analogy, what exactly is it that you think you are showing? What does "showing that logic can exist in the theistic view" actually mean? What is it that you do not know prior to the argument which you do know after the argument? By your reasoning, Xei, I suppose we could come to the conclusion that there is no "showing" anything at all. If we learn a particular set of propositions which, through proper logical deduction, lead us to any particular conclusion, you could say that the conclusion was never in any doubt. I have no idea how I'm saying this. In this case, we initially think the conclusion is either true or false, and afterwards, we think the conclusion is true. How is this a case of "nothing" being shown? I never said anything about proofs being empty because their conclusions were "always the case". That's rubbish.

[Noogah]

If you're referring to Yahweh specifically, you may have a point I am referring to YHWH specifically. Yahweh/Jehovah and Allah are pretty much the same god They are extremely different. If Muslims and Christians agree on nothing, the one thing that they will agree upon is that their ideas of God are simply incompatible. We're only concerned with one thing: whether the car is, or is not, in your garage. I can see now that we have both been following this analogy with completely different perspectives. No: in my scenario, we do, in fact, know the car to be in the garage, but we are not sure what the garage is like. The car represents logic. The garage represents the universe. Depending on what we know about the car, we can 'show' particular things about the garage to be true, and we may thus debunk ideas about the garage: specifically, ideas which would render the garage incapable of containing the vehicle we know to be present. These ideas about what the garage may be like represent worldviews. Disregarding the analogy, what exactly is it that you think you are showing?....What is it that you do not know prior to the argument which you do know after the argument? I think I would rather not disregard the analogy because, for reasons which perplex me, you continue to insist that I cannot counter the claim that "God cannot account for morality, etc." by "showing" through the nature of God and of morality that He, in fact, can. The analogy is a very useful tool - it is like somebody told me that my idea of the garage [universe] could not accommodate the car [logic]. I could "show" him that, yes, the garage could fit the car. I don't know what it is you don't like about the word "show". I use it informally, in case there is some hidden philosophical connotation to the word which I am not aware of. The point is, I can logically say "Yes, morality, etc. makes sense if God exists. It does not make sense if He does not." Earlier, you said that he in fact did [exist] Never in the premises of my argument. But now you are just saying that he could have created those things No, I've been saying it from the beginning, and I have reminded you more than once. You are just now taking notice. now your argument is basically... God might have created logic, morality, and uniformity in nature. I can't think of another explanation for why those things exist. Therefore God exists. No, this is certainly a grossly misconstrued ectype of my argument. I will explain how it is thus by responding to your points: That doesn't work. The initial premise is now a potentiality and not a proposition of certainty No, the proposition has only been obfuscated. It (and the first premise properly goes as): “If God exists, he [certainly] can account for logic, morality, and uniformity of nature” The second premise is connected to the conclusion only by the argument ad ignorantium fallacy. Your second premise is not mine in any form or fashion. The second premise is properly "There is not another worldview that can account for logic, morality, and the uniformity of nature" This premise doesn't have to do with my inability to "think of" ways for them to exist without God. The premise has to do with the inability of existing views to do so. If you want to say that "There could possibly be some view out there which can do so, that you are not aware of", then you are only pointing out an obvious fact. But, as they say, "possibilities come cheap". If every worldview a person knows of, save for God, is antithetical to the existence of morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature, then the second premise is far more probably true than not, and you can't demand that he drop the idea of God, unless you intend to give an alternative explanation for the existence of these things. HOWEVER, it is VERY important to clarify that I regard it as impossible IN PRINCIPLE for anything other than God to account for morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature. There is something beyond nature (as you seem to have agreed) that is like unto a mind, for all our human rational thinking is based in it. It is like unto justice, and love, because all the moral law is based in it. And it is unchanging, because all consistency of physical laws is also based in it. We may just as well call it what it is: God.

[Xei]

I think I would rather not disregard the analogy because, for reasons which perplex me, you continue to insist that I cannot counter the claim that "God cannot account for morality, etc." by "showing" through the nature of God and of morality that He, in fact, can. The analogy is a very useful tool - it is like somebody told me that my idea of the garage [universe] could not accommodate the car [logic]. I could "show" him that, yes, the garage could fit the car. I don't know what it is you don't like about the word "show". I use it informally, in case there is some hidden philosophical connotation to the word which I am not aware of. The point is, I can logically say "Yes, morality, etc. makes sense if God exists. It does not make sense if He does not." Analogies are never perfect and so often misleading. In any case they are always dispensable. The fact that you're unable to couch the argument of the analogy in terms of the thing we're actually discussing is highly suspect. You ignored the crucial question: "what is it that you do not know prior to the argument which you do know after the argument?"

[Noogah]

Analogies are never perfect and so often misleading. Of course, but I still contend that the one I gave was principally similar to the real argument. Perhaps I will better show that with the following clarifications. While you must move past images, they are especially useful when speaking of things that are completely beyond everyday sight and sense. You ignored the crucial question: "what is it that you do not know prior to the argument which you do know after the argument?" Of course, I wasn't intending to ignore it, per se. I had thought that there was a clear disconnect between what I am trying to express, and what you think I am trying to express, which after being exposed, would render the question irrelevant. I am honestly still confused by it. You seem to keep getting stuck on the word "show". I am completely unsure why it bothers you, even though I HAVE read your posts. You want to know PRECISELY what I am showing - Well, I am showing, through the argument, that there are contradictions between the attributes of logic, and particular ideas about the world. Then, I am furthermore showing that there are NOT contradictions between the attributes of logic, and my understanding of the world. It is the exact same thing in the car analogy: you show that ideas of a one foot garage contradict the attributes of the car. You similarly "show" that your own dimensions for the garage DO NOT contradict the attributes of the car.

[Xei]

Well, I am showing, through the argument, that there are contradictions between the attributes of logic, and particular ideas about the world. Then, I am furthermore showing that there are NOT contradictions between the attributes of logic, and my understanding of the world. This is what I suspected your meaning was, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. This is erroneous. You're not showing that logic and God coexisting doesn't lead to a contradiction. All you can show is that it doesn't suffer from some specific contradiction or other (such as the contradiction you think is manifest when God does not exist). This doesn't show that no contradictions exist. There might still be valid contradictions which you just haven't considered yet. To restate this in terms of the garage analogy: say the car (say it's 10 feet long and 5 feet high) represents logic and the garage represents various aspects of the universe (such as whether God exists). If you learn that the garage is 1 foot long, you can rule out the car being in that garage, because 1 is less than 10. You can also show that a different garage which is 100 feet long does not suffer from the same contradiction, because 1 is not less than 100. However, this has not shown that no contradictions exist - only that one particular contradiction doesn't exist. You may fail to notice, for instance, that your garage is only 4 feet high.

[Universal Mind]

Noogah, you clam that I misrepresented your argument. I don't think I did. So, sum up it up for me. Just type premises and conclusion in syllogistic form.

[Noogah]

You're not showing that logic and God coexisting doesn't lead to a contradiction. Not that I wish to quibble, or to derail what else you have written (to which I will also respond), but I must detain you right now, for you have just stated a weighty error which will lead me to some very relevant points. Logic does not coexist with God. If anything coexists with God, then he is not my God. My God is the fountainhead of logic - indeed, He is LOGIC ITSELF. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1, KJV Word = logos This Biblical doctrine, and this Biblical doctrine alone, portrays the only possible God that can account for logic. Whatever logic is, it must be prior to the world we live in. It cannot be explained in terms of the world (naturalism), for we explain the world in terms of IT. It cannot be explained as if it existed alongside the world (dualism), for then it has no clear relation to the world, unless it is part of some larger "nature" than our own nature, in which case, logic will have to be brought in from yet another outside source, ad infinitum. The only way logic can "coexist" with the world is if it actually brought forth the world, in which case, it is prior to the world - and really, any reasonable person would call this position 'theism'. If you learn that the garage is 1 foot long, you can rule out the car being in that garage, because 1 is less than 10. Well, of course. But your version of the scenario is now useless as an analogy, for the car is intended to represent logic. The car fails as a picture, in that, we cannot imagine a situation in which we are unwaveringly certain that there is a car in our garage. Yet, we are unwaveringly certain that there is such a thing as logic in existence. And, if you or I doubt the existence of LOGIC, then this is a rather odd exercise in which we are participating right now, is it not? Of course, I would simply have to discard the idea that my garage was one foot long. OR, I would have to assume that the laws of physics did not function as I believed they did, such that a foot could contain ten feet of space. The simple parallel is this: Any worldview which clearly contradicts the actual being of logic must be discarded. There is rock bottom certainty of logic. Logic does, in fact, exist. This fact is one of few that never needs proving (with morality and the uniformity of nature being others). If a worldview, properly drawn to its logical conclusion, says that it does not, then it is – as Lewis said - “ utterly out of court”. only that one particular contradiction doesn't exist. You may fail to notice, for instance, that your garage is only 4 feet high. To answer you rather unimpressively: so? To show that there is a contradiction between other worldviews and logic, where such a contradiction does not exist in relation to God, is to adequately debunk those worldviews, and to elevate God as a logical alternative. To pull him down, you will have to find such a contradiction. Noogah, you clam that I misrepresented your argument. I don't think I did. So, sum up it up for me. Just type premises and conclusion in syllogistic form. I began with this: God is the only reasonable explanation of logic, morality, and uniformity in nature. Logic, morality, and uniformity in nature exist. Therefore God exists. Since everybody is on board with the minor premise, we began to debate the major one. And thus, I have been waging the following argument in support of the first: If God exists, he certainly can account for logic, morality, and uniformity of nature There is not another worldview that can account for logic, morality, and the uniformity of nature From this, you can either conclude with the first premise of the earlier argument, or you can just save time and end with: Therefore, God exists. I always feel a little odd about “arguing for the existence of God”. God is the only reason you and I can argue in the first place. Not only because He created us, but because He is the foundation of REASON.

[Xei]

Not that I wish to quibble, or to derail what else you have written (to which I will also respond), but I must detain you right now, for you have just stated a weighty error which will lead me to some very relevant points. Logic does not coexist with God. If anything coexists with God, then he is not my God. My God is the fountainhead of logic - indeed, He is LOGIC ITSELF. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1, KJV Word = logos This Biblical doctrine, and this Biblical doctrine alone, portrays the only possible God that can account for logic. Whatever logic is, it must be prior to the world we live in. It cannot be explained in terms of the world (naturalism), for we explain the world in terms of IT. It cannot be explained as if it existed alongside the world (dualism), for then it has no clear relation to the world, unless it is part of some larger "nature" than our own nature, in which case, logic will have to be brought in from yet another outside source, ad infinitum. The only way logic can "coexist" with the world is if it actually brought forth the world, in which case, it is prior to the world - and really, any reasonable person would call this position 'theism'. This is not a 'weighty error', it's a pointless semantic squabble. You yourself have been freely talking of logic existing when God exists. That's all I mean by 'coexisting'. I don't mean to detach them in some way. I just mean the contingency where they both exist. Better?

[Noogah]

I just mean the contingency where they both exist. Yes, I understand. All the same, those points are important, and up until now, I have not had a chance to share them like so.

[Xei]

To answer you rather unimpressively: so? To show that there is a contradiction between other worldviews and logic, where such a contradiction does not exist in relation to God, is to adequately debunk those worldviews, and to elevate God as a logical alternative. So your claim to have shown that logic is "possible" and "justified" given God didn't mean anything. "Elevating God as an alternative" sounds rather grand but it doesn't mean anything either. All you've done is made an argument that rules out logic without the existence of God. We can look at that now. I have just been clarifying that your claims to also have a "justification" for logic under God, and your claims to have "shown that logic is possible" under God, do not seem to make any sense. To show that something is possible is to show that it doesn't lead to a contradiction. You didn't do that. You just claimed (and I'm not currently questioning this) that your specific argument for the nonexistence of logic without God does not apply when God does exist.

[Noogah]

You just claimed (and I'm not currently questioning this) that your specific argument for the nonexistence of logic without God does not apply when God does exist. You mean to say that I showed how facets of logic contradict non-God worldviews, and DO NOT contradict God. And this is precisely your qualification for showing that something is possible. In Christianity, as I have shown, it is possible and justified for there to be an absolute standard of reasoning that is beyond the natural world, which governs our minds, and leads to the acquisition of truthful knowledge. There is NO contradiction between these facets of logic, and God. There is, however, between them and other worldviews. So to the best of my knowledge, I HAVE shown that logic does not contradict God. In the end, I am left wondering whether you intend to propose a way that it DOES contradict God. I think that, if you feel you have one, you ought to bring it up.

[Xei]

Be careful. You weren't talking about whether logic contradicts God. You were talking about whether the existence of logic contradicts God. Depending on the definition of 'God', I may hold that there are arguments of classical logic which show a contradiction. And of course, there may be other definitions which I don't think lead to a logical contradiction. But I think you'll agree that that is a separate discussion. As to the more pertinent question of whether I think the existence of logic contradicts God: again, of course, that would depend on a definition of 'God'. But no, I don't intend to propose a way that the existence of logic contradicts God. My position could probably be described as being that logic, insofar as the following is meaningful, can exist in universes where God does, and doesn't, exist. But as I said before - one thing at a time. You mean to say that I showed how facets of logic contradict non-God worldviews, and DO NOT contradict God. Yes. And this is precisely your qualification for showing that something is possible. No, the qualification for showing that something is possible is to show that it does not lead to any contradiction. This is not the same thing as showing that it doesn't lead to some specific contradiction or other.

[Noogah]

You weren't talking about whether logic contradicts God. You were talking about whether the existence of logic contradicts God. This, of course, is semantics. But it isn't pointless semantics. I admit that is quite a relevant distinction. When I spoke of logic not "contradicting" God, I did mean the same thing I have been saying all along: the existence of logic does not contradict God. Of course, I also hold that there are no logical contradictions to God. Nevertheless, that topic is not half as interesting to me as the one we are currently discussing. I am not presently interested in the epistemological relationship between logic and God. Rather, I am interested in arguing for the metaphysical relationship between God, and the laws of logic. As to the more pertinent question of whether I think the existence of logic contradicts God: again, of course, that would depend on a definition of 'God'. Well that would be YHWH. We are certainly both aware of His basic attributes. More importantly, I think I ought to define exactly what I mean by logic. This need is clear, of course, from your question of how I can show there to be NO contradiction between God and logic. Here are the qualities of logic which certainly do not contradict God: 1. The laws of logic are truths 2. The laws of logic are truths about truths 3. The laws of logic are necessary truths 4. The laws of logic really do exist 5. The laws of logic exist necessarily 6. The laws of logic are not physical I think these attributes of logic come very naturally, and match what we intuitively mean by ‘logic’. These things can all exist in a universe with God. Logic is neither above God nor arbitrarily decreed by God. Its ultimate basis is in God's eternal nature. God is a rational God and necessarily so. Therefore logic is necessary. Human logical systems don't always reflect God's logic perfectly. But insofar as they do, they are necessarily true.

[Sageous]

Xei = Rock Noogah = Hard Place This Thread = caught between a rock and a hard place. I assume you guys are having fun, and are both pretty sure that you'll never convince the other of anything, which is cool. But isn't this conversation pretty much moot anyway? Neither of you actually believe that there is a thing called logic, do you? Isn't logic simply a tool for reasoning and communication? A very important tool, yes, but just as there are no actual numbers or theories floating in some cloud of physical knowledge, there is no actual material called logic. Right? Also, I'm not sure that "First there was the Word" translates to "God is logic," nor should it. I think the early Bible authors were going for something else altogether, being that the primordial definition of God ought to be a bit more impressive than "God is a set of reasoning tools." As your exchange approaches 100 posts, I just had to ask; I hope you don't mind!

[Noogah]

Isn't logic simply a tool for reasoning and communication? A very important tool, yes, but just as there are no actual numbers or theories floating in some cloud of physical knowledge, there is no actual material called logic. Right? Absolutely not. Indeed, the point that logic is NOT material is vital to our discussion. Logic does not exist in a purely materialistic universe. 1. The laws of logic are truths 2. The laws of logic are truths about truths 3. The laws of logic are necessary truths 4. The laws of logic really do exist 5. The laws of logic exist necessarily 6. The laws of logic are not physical If I did not believe logic were real, I would not be having this discussion. Not only because this discussion CONCERNS logic, but because we must USE logic in order to have it. Isn't logic simply a tool for reasoning and communication? No, it is not a tool at all. Language is a tool - a tool that is governed by logic. I doubt you believe deep down that logic is merely a tool. We all agree that logic accurately tells us about truth. We use logic to discern truth, and to understand truth. If logic were merely a tool, then neither Xei nor I would have any assurance that this discussion, which uses logic all through, could bring us to any knowledge about truth. Logic is, therefore, far more than a tool. Also, I'm not sure that "First there was the Word" translates to "God is logic," nor should it. There is a discussion to be had about that. The first person I know of who actually thought "Logos" ought to be translated as "logic" was the philosopher and theologian Gordon H. Clark, who wrote about the subject at length. 'Logos' is a complicated word, with more than one possible literal rendering. There are many Christians who agree with Clarke, and many who disagree. I myself am not inclined to take an emphatic position on the philological implications of the subject, but I do tend to agree that the verse does encompass the fact that the substance of logic is in God. All the same, I agree with John Frame's generalization of my point: "[Logic's] ultimate basis is in God's eternal nature." In the end, I could use far more scripture than that particular verse to argue for this concept. It is based on all that we understand God to be from the Bible. being that the primordial definition of God ought to be a bit more impressive than "God is a set of reasoning tools." 1. As a Christian, I do not accept the Bible's claims as "primordial". Rather, every proposition to be found in the Bible with the purpose of relaying God's character is a true one. 2. As I have argued, logic is FAR MORE than a set of reasoning tools. 3. "God is logic" does not mean the same thing as "God is logic, and only logic". God is everything we know Him to be from the Bible. As your exchange approaches 100 posts, I just had to ask; I hope you don't mind! I certainly don't! I am not having this discussion so I can have fun. I'm having this discussion because I want to share and defend the truth of God, and salvation through Jesus Christ.