In the previous lesson we briefly dealt with the fact that rational discussion requires the existence of logical absolutes. Perhaps the most commonly used logical absolute in dialogue is the law of non-contradiction. It is easy for us to point out when someone is self-contradictory. But the only reason we can do this is because of the principal we call The Law of Non Contradiction:  that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time. This is the second law of logic. Okay, so we can see that no rational thought is possible without the foundation of logical absolutes. But now let's ask a question: where do these logical absolutes come from?
     What I want to present here is called the Transcendental Argument. It is worth knowing because it is powerful as a method for establishing God's existence. It also gives the one who uses it a foundation of understanding that the ultimate source of rationality rests with God himself. This argument can become valuable as you adapt it in many different discussions. So, what I want to do is teach you this argument so that you can, hopefully, use it later. You will see in the pending dialogues that I will use this approach with atheists. It has proven very effective in almost every conversation I have had with an atheist when dealing with the issue of rationality. Remember, the atheist often likes to think himself as being more rational than the Christian. But, when you present this argument, and he can not rationally deal with it, you are establishing that you are thinking critically, showing that his basis of rationality is undermined, and that he is ultimately being irrational. Finally, by way of reminder, this argument and the principles contained in this argument are not only meant for atheists. They are easily adapted to other arguments.

The Transcendental Argument

     Logical absolutes exist. For example, the law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time. Let's take this law of non-contradiction, this logical absolute, as well as the whole concept of the existence of logical absolutes, and try to account for their existence.  In other words, how do we account for the existence of logical absolutes?
     The nature of logic is conceptual. Logical thinking is a mental process. For this reason, logical absolutes (the basis of logical thought) cannot be found under a microscope. You do not discover them with a telescope. You cannot freeze them, take pictures of them, weigh them, or put them in a container. This is because they're not physical in nature. They are conceptual in nature. We must then ask that if they are conceptual in nature, then where do they come from?  Generally, people will say that we as humans invented the laws of logic. But there is a problem with this explanation.  Our minds are different and we often contradict each other.  In contrast, logical absolutes are always true.  What one person would consider absolutely true and logical might be denied by another.  Therefore, it cannot be that logical absolutes are dependent upon human minds.
     The nature of the logical absolutes is that they are transcendent.  This means that they transcend space and time.   If you were to go into the future a billion years, logical absolutes are still true. If you were to travel backward a billion years, logical absolutes are still true. Likewise, if you were to travel to anywhere in the universe, logical absolutes do not stop being true. They are always true no matter when you are and where you are. Therefore, logical absolutes transcend space and time (hence, the title "The Transcendental Argument"). Local absolutes are not dependent upon or affected by space and time.
     We have established three points:

1. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, not physical.
2. Logical absolutes are not dependent upon human minds.
3. Logical absolutes transcend space and time.

     Since we have established that logical absolutes are not physical, they are not dependent upon properties of matter found in the universe. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature but they are not the product of human thinking. Therefore, is logical to conclude that humans merely discover logical absolutes. They do not establish them.
     Question:  Is it fair to say that a person's thoughts are a reflection of his mind?  If a person has an irrational mind, then his thoughts and his speech will reflect that irrationality.  If he has a logical mind, then we would expect his thoughts to be logical as well. If we admit that logical absolutes are transcendent in nature and that they are absolute, as well as conceptual, then is it not fair to conclude that there is a transcendent and absolute mind that is authoring the logical absolutes? It seems rational to say so.
     We then conclude that this transcendent and absolute mind is God.
     At this point, atheists, for example, do not like the conclusion since they presuppose that God does not exist. I acknowledge that they do not like my conclusion but I then ask them to offer a more rational explanation for the existence of logical absolutes. I have yet to encounter an atheist who can produce such an explanation.  They are not, however, without a response.

A typical response

     Typically, atheists will tell us that logical absolutes are the result of observing nature. They respond by stating that a rock does nothing but exist as a rock. By observing that a rock does not change and that a rock is not a bird, then they include that logical absolutes are nothing more than observations of matter.
     They are correct in that a rock does not change. But their observations and their analysis is conceptual in nature and they are making rational conclusions based upon observation. The fact that they're making an observation and assigning a logical absolute to that observation, still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes. In other words, they cannot assume logical absolutes are true in order to assume logical absolutes are true. But, an additional problem is that how do they know that Iraq never changes into a bird?  could it be that if the rock were observed for long enough period of time that this would occur?  the obvious answer is to deny this possibility, but that denial is an assumption.  If the atheist were to tell us that it is absolutely impossible for a rock to spontaneously change into a bird, then he has acknowledged the first law of logic; namely, the law of identity.  A rock is a rock, not a bird.  He has again cited, indirectly, a logical absolute without accounting for its existence.  The fact supports the truth of the logical absolute.  It is the logical absolute that establishes that Iraq will not spontaneously change into a bird.

Too heady?

     This may be to intellectual for some of you. If it is, please review it until you get it. It is a valuable argument for the existence of God.  Furthermore, understanding and helps produce a more logical foundation of thinking.