Laws of Thought
Logic is the tool of philosophy which forms the foundational assumptions for the scientific method. These assumptions form the “laws of thought" that are essential to science and intuitively known by everyone. They are:
1. Law of identity: An object can not have two identities; a tree is not a telephone pole, a dog is not a cat.
2. Law of non-contradiction: A premise can not be both true and false at the same time.
3. Law of excluded middle: Something is or it is not; God either exists or he does not.
I am a Christian, not because someone told me it was true, but because it is a rational system that describes reality. For a system to be rational, it needs to be coherent. Christianity is certainly coherent even if it's premises are disputed. It offers a consistent description of why the Universe exists, its purpose and destinty.
For proof, I offer not only that which can be empirically validated (using the scientific method), but also that which can be logically inferred (using inductive and deductive reasoning) beyond a reasonable doubt. And, while I don't require a belief to be absolutely certain in order to accept it, still, it must be very close. In order for my faith to develop, it must do so on the rock of rationality.
For example, I may not be absolutely certain about my fate after death, but I am so confident (98%) in my belief in the afterlife that the difference is negligible and faith fills in the rest.
And, proof for me is not so much the positive affirmation of a belief but also how it stands up to negative attacks. Or, put another way, my beliefs are not formed by merely finding positive support for them - that's usually very easy - but, they must also withstand attacks to destroy them. In fact, my experience is that beliefs are made stronger by attempts to refute them (or discarded if they fail to measure up).
In the final analysis, when choosing between competing beliefs, the one that offers the most complete description of reality is most often the one that is more reasonable to believe. It is extremely important to understand there are meaningful aspects of the human experience and significant questions that science is not equipped to directly answer. Therefore, one must look to logic to validate or reject a potential belief.
So, the proofs that convinced me of the rationality for God's existence are not solely based on empirical evidence, but also on logical reasoning based on the “laws of thought.”
Labels: laws of thought, logic, philosophy
posted by Roy Clemmons @ 12:00 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Great idea for a site and a good way to discuss.
is there a difference between fantasy and wishful thinking?
Oops. I meant to contrast fantasy and reality. Thanks for catching my mistake.
To answer your question, fantasy is based on make believe and has little to no connection with reality.
Wishful thinking is an illusion that one wishes were true.
I strive to reject fantastical thinking and to identify and reject wishful thinking in my worldview and I encourage you to do the same.
In my opinion, when it comes to your worldview, reality and truth are always preferable to fantasy and wishful thinking.
Thanks for you comments.
If I got this right, you are 98% sure God exists, and 2% you can accept on faith.
Doesn't the Bible teach us to be faithful? Seems like your premise to rely on logic to prove the existence of God contradicts the underlying thesis.
If you believe that God exists and his teachings as described in the Bible, shouldn't you be able to claim a higher percentage of faith.
I've learned that faith is a journey where people begin at different places. Quantitatively, if faith were measured on a scale from 1 to 100, some people begin near their journey where their faith is low, say 5 and others begin higher, say, 90.
As time progresses and their knowledge increases, faith also increases. However, I'm not suggesting that faith only increases through knowledge, but, for me, anyway, it helps.
Since I wrote the Introduction, I've come to the understanding that God, the Holy Spirit, is the authenticator and instigator of faith. Without his influence, nobody would believe and have faith in God - much less myself. Thus, through the Holy Spirit's witness, my faith is now at 100%.
Still, many people, I think, are uncomfortable with that level of confidence, because they don't believe matters regarding God, spirituality and the like can be known with complete confidence.
But, ironically, some of these same people have little to no problem placing their complete confidence in science, which by its very nature, constantly changes. See the paradox?
Don't misunderstand, I'm a strong advocate for the practice of science - good science, that is, where theories are held loosely - not rigidly - and where minds remain skeptical, but open. The closed minded scientist, in my mind, is as bad as, the religious fundie.
For me, my faith in God has increased from mere belief in his existence to trusting my life and will to him resulting in an inward peace in this life and hope for the next.
I appreciate your question and I hope I answered it to your satisfaction. Take care.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home