In their seemingly growing desperation to maintain the illusion that there is evidence for a god, Theists have produced some very odd attempts to justify their belief. One of those I have run into several times recently is this strange argument:
“If there are laws of logic then someone had to set them in place. There had to be a law-giver!”
The argument can seem a bit unclear at first but the general point is that reality operates in certain ways, such as it being impossible for contradictions to exist (although some quantum physicists may not consider this necessarily true). They claim that since these seemingly universal and consistent behaviors or facts exist, therefore a sentient being must have caused them to exist. (You can see a Christian website advocating this argument here: )
But that is false, for numerous reasons.
1) Equivocation fallacy
Advocates tend to base their belief foremost on a fallacy of equivocation where they use the word “law” in two different ways so as to illogically prove a point. They see the word “law” being used in a scientific and logical sense which refers to a description of a natural phenomenon, and they incorrectly count it as synonymous with a literal legislative law passed by sentient beings in government which are ultimately demands which people can follow or not under threat of punishment.
2) Same evidence whether a god exists or not
The fact that the universe works in certain ways (or at least our local universe at this point in space and time) is not indication of a being that designed that behavior. The reason for this should be quite obvious: If anything exists at all then it must behave in some way. So having a universe that works in certain ways is exactly what the case would be whether a designer existed or not. For example, even if a god existed, then he must have existed in a reality which operated in certain ways even before he made any other “laws”. This means that a “god” explains nothing. The god hypothesis just adds a logically unnecessary and irrelevant element to the picture. Thus, in accordance with Occam’s razor, it is a blatantly unfounded assumption and is probably wrong.
3) Impossible for even a hypothetical being to dictate all laws of reality
If a law-giver god existed, then that would mean there was a point at which concepts like the law of non-contradiction were false and thus there was no ultimate reality. Thus god couldn’t be supreme over everything and there would be no way to change that because a contradictory reality could always coexist.
4) Special pleading fallacy
If an apologist says the laws would exist merely by the god’s nature, then again they have no logical basis to add god to the picture because the same could simply be said of the natural universe. And to assert, without any clear evidence, that “only a god” could yield such results would be a special pleading fallacy.
“God is beyond the laws of logic!”
This claim is truly bizarre and proof they are really desperate. The claim there doesn’t have any evidence to support it, it has no conditions upon which it can be either proven or falsified, and most importantly it doesn’t even make sense. How can a god possibly be beyond some rules of logic, even hypothetically? Regardless of whether or not the SAME logic governs a god, the fact must be that if a god exists at all, he exists according to some nature of some reality. Otherwise there would simply be nothing. And if you claim that those rules of logic exist by that god’s own nature, then I’ll refer you back to Point 4 above.
“You believe in the laws of logic which are invisible and intangible, so you have the same faith as Theists!”
That’s completely wrong, because regardless of how you view what the laws of logic are, the fact is that there is solid evidence for them, and evidence is ultimately all that matters. The “laws of logic” are human descriptions of how the physical universe behaves. They are not arbitrary assertions. They are observations of how the world works, put into words, and tested throughout time. They can be demonstrated to be valid, unlike belief in a god.