Timeless Argument Between the Logician and Skeptic
Evaluation of the argument
The argument between the Logician and Skeptic is generally excellent in spite of a few shortcomings. To begin with, the Skeptic does not argue his position and proposals about the laws of logical absolutes. It appears as if the Skeptic is not conversant at all with these laws and therefore cannot offer and defend an opinion. However, the Logician is very comprehensive in his argument and indeed clarifies every position taken for and against the laws of logic (Schneider 65).
The elements of excellence in the argument are conspicuous. First, logical absolutes must exist for effective rational discussions to take place. The non-contradiction law is mostly used in dialogues that require logical absolutes. As a result, whenever an individual contradicts him/herself, it is quite easy to point it out. This is the same approach used by the Logician in the given argument. As he refutes the answers given by the Skeptic, he gives vivid evidence to support the claim. The Law of Non-Contradiction enables the Logician to identify fallacies in the feedback given by the Skeptic. This is the logic behind the assertion that B cannot be both B and not B simultaneously. From the argument, it is obvious that logical absolutes should act as the main foundation whenever rational thoughts are brought into focus or consideration.
Nevertheless, it is also crucial for us to establish the origin of logical absolutes. Perhaps, the aspect of Transcendental Argument should come into play at this point. The Logician talks about the Absolute Transcendent Mind that is closely embedded in the transcendent laws of logic. In fact, ascertaining the existence of God requires the application of logical absolutes bearing in mind that they are only powerful tools of doing so. As the Logician applies these laws in the argument, he is in a position to deduce that the final source of rationality is only found in God. In any case, this conclusion makes the argument more profound and justifiable at all costs.
In most instances, atheists prefer labeling themselves as rational thinkers compared to Christians. Nevertheless, the argument presented by the Logician can challenge the ‘rational’ thinking of atheists especially if they are not capable of interpreting and addressing it. In other words, it is a very critical argument. In addition, it is not only the atheist who can benefit from the tenets in this argument. Hence, other types of arguments can still make use of the propositions to construct valid and sound discussions (Arguments for the existence of God par. 1).
The Transcendental Argument
It is vital to mention that the existence of logical absolutes cannot be ignored or refuted. From the principle of non-contradiction, we have already established that the terms ‘false’ and ‘true’ cannot be applied to an entity simultaneously. If logical absolutes can be accounted for, then it is equally possible to draw the argument closer towards explaining the existence of God as argued out by the Logician in the argument. It is indeed factual that the argument illustrates the conceptual nature of logic. It is also evident that any type of mental process entails logical thinking. Therefore, the foundation of any logical thought is based on logical absolutes. Besides, the latter is not hidden in any way because it can be experienced in daily life. A telescope cannot be used to discover them. They can neither be placed in a container nor be weighed or photographed owing to the fact that they are abstract entities.
Since they are not physical in nature, the Logician has successfully attempted to explore their origins through the final part of the argument. For example, the Logician asserts that laws of logic are transcendent beyond space, time, and matter. Throughout the universe, the laws of logic do not change at all and that is why they are referred to as universal (Mongin 317). They have always been authentic ever since the universe came into being. Even after the Skeptic fumbled and relentlessly tried to duck the original question, the Logician remained focused and firm to support his point of view.
In the concluding part of the argument, the Logician is keen on highlighting how we can account for these laws. He observes that logic is grasped by the mind through thought. Nonetheless, we may also be interested to expound and relate the transcendent nature of logical absolutes, especially in regards to understanding the existence of God. Both space and time cannot change these laws just as God is unchangeable. Needless to say, logical absolutes are expected to remain true regardless of place and variation of time. When exploring the aspect of Transcendental Argument, it is fundamental to mention that it is directly linked to logical absolutes as expounded by the Logician.
Finally, it is also worth to highlight that logical absolutes should be as independent as possible in the sense that when discussing dependent and independent variables, they should not be affected at all. The only missing element in the argument is the issue of variables. Even though the Logician has distantly captured the same, it should be brought out clearly in the argument in order to support the claims.
Arguments for the existence of God. 2010. Web.
Mongin, Philippe. “The Doctrinal Paradox, the Discursive Dilemma, and Logical Aggregation Theory.” Theory and Decision 73.3 (2012): 315-55.
Schneider, Nathan. God in Proof: The Story of a Search from the Ancients to the Internet. University of California Press, 2013. Print.