Is God Bound by Logic?

Is God bound by logic? This question seems to pose a conundrum for the Christian. If we say “yes,” then we have seemed to have made God subject to something, which would mean he is no longer God. If he must obey something, then whatever he must obey would by necessity be greater than he. If we say “no” and offer an explanation like, “God created logic, so he is greater than logic,” we then move into an area of absurdity. That would mean there was a time when logic did not exist, and if logic did not exist, then God would be both God and not God at the same time and in the same sense. To grasp this issue thoroughly, we must understand the four laws of logic.

The first law of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which says A cannot be both A and not A in the same sense and at the same time. As Christians, we take this law so seriously that we argue that the Bible never contradicts itself. We are so earnest about it, we say, that if it does contradict itself, some portion of the Word of God communicates falsehood.

Critics regularly point out things in Scripture that seem contradictory, but we quickly highlight that an apparent contradiction is not necessarily an actual contradiction. In other words, not everything that appears to be a contradiction is a contradiction. For example, if I say, “That man is green,” then say, “That man is not green,” someone might say, “You have contradicted yourself.”  They might be correct, or they might not. What does the law of non-contradiction say? “A cannot be both A and not A in the same sense and at the same time.” This means my two statements might coexist without contradiction in two ways.

I would not have contradicted myself if there had been a significant change in time. When I first said the man was green, he may have been covered in green paint. If, two days later, when I had said that the man was not green, he may have washed the paint off him by that point, and I would not have contradicted myself because time had changed.

The second way I would be vindicated from the charge of contradicting myself is if I used the word green in two different senses. The first time I said the man was green, I meant he was covered in green paint. My immediate second comment meant that man is not green in the sense that he is not inexperienced. In this example, my comments would be the same as saying that the man is covered in green paint but is not inexperienced. There is no contradiction in those two statements. The only way it would be a contradiction is if I said he is “green” in the same sense at the same time.

The second law is the law of identity. This law states everything is what it is, or A is A. We depend on this law every time we speak a sentence. If you say, “That is a car.” You mean that is a car. Without the law of identity. Every sentence would be an absurdity. If the law of identity did not exist, when you say, “That is a car,” it would mean, “That might be a car,” because a car is not necessarily a car. “Might” would be the only thing you could say about anything in the universe. Communication would become impossible.

The third law of logic is the law of excluded middle. It says A is either A or not A. If I point to something and say that it is a book, it is either a book or not a book. There is no middle option. Someone might protest by remarking, “If I point to something and proclaim, ‘that it is a tree,’ what if it is a bush that looks like a tree?” In that case, it is not a tree. It either is or is not a tree. Even if it is difficult to tell what something is, it does not mean it exists outside the law of excluded middle.

The fourth law of logic is the law of rational inference. We use it every time we make an argument. This law says some statements of truth infer other statements of truth. For example, if I say, “Jane’s dog is brown,” and then later say, “That dog you hear barking is Jane’s,” without any further information, you can deduce that the dog you hear barking is brown.

Rational inference can take two different forms: deduction and induction. Deduction infers from a general principle to a particular instance. For example, if I know a general truth that every person has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, when I see a particular person on the street, I can deduce from that principle that they have fallen short of the glory of God. Deductive arguments are always the strongest arguments.

Induction works in the other direction. It moves from the particular to the general. For example, if we know a specific fire is hot, and every other fire we have ever encountered is hot, we induce a general principle that all fires are hot. Christians do this every time we do inductive Bible study. If we read a narrative passage and see that King David is in hot water and calls out to God, and God hears him and is with him in the hardship, we infer that God will also hear us. It is easy to make mistakes with induction, so we must be careful. We commit a logical fallacy called a hasty generalization when we are too quick to form a general rule based on too few observations.

In this short review, we can see that logic is indispensable. All language, knowledge, and, therefore, the existence of truth presupposes the existence of logic. Countless people attempt to argue against the reliability or truthfulness of logic, but they must use logic to do so, which is self-refuting. The only consistent argument that can be made against logic, and truth for that matter, is silence. The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. It is something for which the naturalist cannot account, yet they rely upon it as if it is all three. They must borrow from the Christian worldview to argue for their own.

How does Christianity account for logic? Where does logic come from if it does not exist outside of God, and if it is not something he created? A consistent Christian answer to that question is that logic is the expression of the mind of God. In the same way God is the source and standard for truth, goodness, and beauty, logic is also an expression of his nature. God is not bound by any of these as if they are standards outside of him, nor are they things that failed to exist until he created them. He IS the source and standard by which everything external to him is measured.

-D. Eaton