- The Law of Identity (A is A)
- The Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be both A and not-A)
- The Law of the Excluded Middle (A is either A or not-A)
These universal laws govern not only reasoned thought but also meaningful communication. But where do they come from?
When we label something 'logical' or 'illogical', we appeal to a standard beyond ourselves—a standard that applies across all cultures, times, and circumstances. Unlike human customs or conventions, the laws of logic do not change or evolve. They are discovered, not invented.
But if logic is not a product of human invention, what explains its existence? If the universe were merely the product of matter, time, and chance, could something as immaterial, precise, and universal as logic arise from it?
A purely materialistic worldview holds that everything can be explained by physical processes alone. But can such a framework account for immaterial absolutes like logical laws? If logic were just neural firings, why does it hold true beyond individual brains, binding even the cosmos to its rules?
Imagine a spider randomly spinning silk and, through millions of years of trial and error, developing the perfect web. In evolutionary biology, such adaptations are attributed to natural selection. Natural selection refines physical traits, but logic isn’t a trait; it’s a framework that governs thought itself, transcending biological adaptation. To credit randomness with its precision strains credulity.
Could mere physical processes, governed by chance, produce unchanging, universal laws of thought? The leap defies calculation.
If logic were merely a byproduct of neural activity or social convention, it would be subject to change. But logic does not change—it remains constant, pointing to something beyond the physical world.
Logic isn’t alone in this; its close cousin, mathematics, also hints at a reality beyond the physical. Numbers are not tangible objects, yet they are essential for describing reality. No one has ever seen the number “2,” yet its properties remain consistent. Even more intriguingly, mathematics often reveals truths about the universe before they are observed empirically.
For example, imaginary numbers (like the square root of -1, denoted i) were once considered theoretical but later became indispensable in physics and engineering.
What if God is like that—an unseen yet necessary reality, foundational to everything we experience? Just as mathematical laws require a rational framework to exist, so too does logic. And a rational framework implies intention, suggesting a Mind, not just a force. Could that Mind be personal, engaging with what it has made?
Many skeptics dismiss this idea, pointing to contradictions among religious believers or failings within religious institutions. That’s fair—human imperfections exist.
But what if the question of God isn’t about flawed people, but about ultimate reality? If logic suggests a rational, unchanging foundation, wouldn’t it make sense to explore whether that foundation is personal?
If there is even a possibility that God is real, would it not be worth investigating? Here’s a simple challenge:
Humbly ask:
"God, if You are real, show Yourself to me in a way I can understand."
Then, approach the Bible not as myth, but as a potential window into truth. Read with an open mind.
Humbly ask again:
Does this explain reality better than its alternatives?
My prayer for you:
"Father, You have revealed Yourself powerfully to those who seek You. Please do the same for anyone reading this today. Let them see what is true. Amen."
No doubt, no sin, no past is beyond Christ’s forgiveness for those who turn to Him. If logic itself points beyond the material world, perhaps truth is not just an abstract principle—but a Person. Seek with an open heart, and follow the truth wherever it leads.
