The Assumption of Universal Laws' Source

Proponents of TAG often claim that laws of logic, mathematics, and physics necessitate God's existence. Yet, strong arguments for this assertion are notably lacking among Christian apologists. Many seem to assume that God is the sole source of these universal laws without providing justification.

A significant issue is the conflation of materialism or naturalism with the absence of abstract concepts. Some Christians mistakenly believe that embracing naturalism entails a rejection of logic and mathematics.

This misinterpretation exemplifies a fallacy known as equivocation, where the meaning of terms shifts during a discussion.

If Christians fail to recognize this flaw, they might establish a strawman argument, claiming that if one uses logic and reason to challenge theism, it implies an assumption of theism itself. However, disbelief in the supernatural does not equate to denying the existence of logical or mathematical principles.

Most atheists consider the laws of logic and mathematics reliable tools for understanding the world, independent of God's existence. Any claim asserting that a godless world would lack numbers, logic, or moral standards must be substantiated with evidence rather than mere assumption.

This assertion seems nearly impossible to validate or invalidate, as no compelling arguments or evidence convincingly support it.

Mixing Objective Reality with Subjective Perception

Another critical flaw in TAG is its tendency to confuse the objective nature of reality with subjective confidence in our understanding of it.

Certain interpretations of TAG suggest that if humans evolved, our primary drive would be survival, not the pursuit of objective knowledge. This perspective implies that we have no reason to trust our reasoning abilities. Yet, the fact that we can acquire knowledge indicates that we are more than mere products of evolution but rather creations of a divine being.

The error lies in the assumption that our confidence in knowledge is inherently subjective, which does not validate the existence of universal laws.

To clarify, consider these four possibilities: 1. This universe is ordered, and we are confident in acquiring knowledge. 2. This universe is ordered, but we lack confidence in our knowledge. 3. This universe is chaotic with no universal laws, yet we are confident in our knowledge. 4. This universe is chaotic with no universal laws, and we lack confidence in our knowledge.

Considering our inherent belief in the attainability of knowledge, we can dismiss possibilities two and four. However, the third option remains valid: our confidence might be misplaced, suggesting a reality without objective laws.

For TAG to hold water, Christians must argue that subjective confidence can only exist if God is real, claiming that without God, humans would inherently doubt their understanding of the world.

However, it is clear that confidence in acquiring knowledge can arise from evolutionary processes, and no Christian apologist has convincingly shown that such confidence cannot stem from natural selection.

Thus, even if Christians successfully argue that universal laws depend on God’s existence, they have not definitively proven God’s reality, as they have not established the objective existence of these universal principles.

Misunderstanding Foundational Principles

Here’s a question for TAG proponents: How can you assert that knowledge is attainable? The answer typically leads back to the belief in an orderly universe created by God. When asked how they know God exists, they reply that knowledge only makes sense if God exists.

This creates a circular reasoning issue.

Christian YouTuber Jay Dyer acknowledges that TAG involves circular reasoning but argues that this is acceptable for foundational concepts. He contends that since laws of logic and math reference themselves, circular reasoning is legitimate in this context.

This reasoning is flawed. Circular arguments are always invalid, regardless of the context. Foundational principles remain unproven and cannot be validated through fallacious reasoning. We must accept these principles as true without evidence.

For example, in mathematics, axioms are accepted as truths without proof.

> "Mathematicians assume that axioms are true without being able to prove them." (Source)

If axioms cannot be proven, how can we declare them true? The answer lies in their self-evident nature.

Regardless of how many times you place one apple on a table and add another, the result will always be two apples. Therefore, concluding that 1 + 1 = 2 is justified.

If one day you place one apple on a table, add another, and somehow end up with three apples, you might start to doubt the statement that 1 + 1 equals 2. However, such an anomaly does not occur in reality.

Similarly, the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be non-A simultaneously) is self-evident and we are justified in assuming it is true without needing proof.

In this regard, both Christians and atheists operate on equal ground. They accept the Law of Non-Contradiction not because they believe in God, but because it is inherently true.

Thus, it is disingenuous for Christians to claim that the world can only be understood through the lens of theism.

A Provocative Inquiry for Christians: Should Non-Christians Trust Their Reasoning?

Those who advocate for TAG maintain that God’s existence underpins the laws of logic, allowing us to trust our reasoning capabilities.

However, when non-Christians assert that they find no compelling arguments for the Christian God, how do Christians react? Should non-Christians place faith in their reasoning?

Interestingly, Christians often provide reasons for non-believers to question their judgment. A common argument is that human reasoning is flawed due to sin from Adam and Eve’s actions, suggesting that trust in personal judgment is unwarranted.

So, should we trust our ability to comprehend the world or not? Many Christians seem conflicted, wanting to affirm trust in one context while denying it in another.

Another Intriguing Question: Can Universal Laws Established by God Be Violated?

The irony lies in the fact that Christians using TAG to argue for understanding universal laws often simultaneously believe those laws can be bent or broken.

They pray for miraculous healings, divine interventions in disasters, and events defying natural laws. If God exists, then even the dead can be revived or the living transformed if it is His will. Anything is possible.

However, the reasoning behind TAG negates the validity of prayer. By endorsing TAG, praying Christians inadvertently undermine their own position.

Atheists, conversely, often perceive the universe as more orderly than Christians, as they do not subscribe to miracles or supernatural events.

Similarly, Christians asserting that God established universal moral laws also claim that God is not bound by those laws, justifying any action under divine authority.

> "If God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted — at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God." — Slavoj Žižek

When the same assertion ("God exists") serves to support contradictory positions, it raises doubts about the reasoning involved, indicating a desire to rationalize any conclusion regardless of its validity.

Conclusion

Whenever I encounter Christians advocating philosophical arguments for God's existence, I cannot help but wonder: If the God they believe in truly exists, why must they argue for His reality? Imagine a nation where citizens feel compelled to convince others that their President is alive.

If the Christian God genuinely exists and wishes to connect with humanity, one would expect Him to reveal Himself in a manner that is undeniably convincing. It should not fall to His followers to prove His existence to skeptics.

Consider that!