The Argument from Logic

Thanks to DakotaKrafick again. The Argument from LogicThe argument goes something like this (as formulated by Greg Welty and James Anderson):"The laws of logic are necessary truths about truths; they are necessarily true propositions. Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person. A necessarily existent person must be spiritual in nature, because no physical entity exists necessarily. Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God." [1]Let's break it down (I will mainly be taking about the law of non-contradiction (LNC for short) but anything said about it can be, mutatis mutandis, applied to other the other laws of logic):The laws of logic are necessary truths about truths; they are necessarily true propositions.If the LNC is anything it is true. When I say that nothing can both be true and false at the same time I mean to assert that it is true that nothing can both be true and false at the same time. It can't be true that you're getting beaten and burned at the same time and in the same sense that you're not getting beaten and burned (to borrow a turn of phrase of the philosopher Avicenna). [2] It is true in the same way that the utterance "3 x 6 = 18" is. The LNC seems to be a truth about about other truths - i.e. it's the truth that other truths cannot be false at the same time in the same sense. Not only is it true that the LNC is truth about other truths it seems also to be a truth that couldn't possibly be false. In short, it is a necessary truth. [3] A decisive argument cant be brought forward that the LNC is a necessary truth - the LNC is the very standard we use to determine what's possible in the first place! Think about it. When one considers, for instance, whether unicorns could exist one has to consider whether the concept of a unicorn is logically consistent (non-contradictory). If it is not logically consistent then unicorns could not have possibly existed.Now, to backtrack a little, to say that something is true is to say that it is a proposition. "Propositions, we shall say, are the sharable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity." [4] A proposition is a primary bearer of truth or falsity; that it is truth-valued by it's very nature and not truth-valued in virtue of something else. If the LNC is a truth then it is a proposition. If it is a truth about truths it is a proposition about other propositions. If it is necessarily true then it is a necessarily true proposition.Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts.If the LNC is a proposition showing that the the LNC is real will show that propositions are real entities. By "real" it is meant they exist in the same sense that the earth is real. One quick argument for the conclusion that the LNC is a real entity is in the way that properties are attributed to existent things. It makes a lot of sense to say that my car is solid. But that's because my car actually exists. It wouldn't any sense to say that my non-existent car is solid. I wouldn't have a referent to to apply the property of "solid" too. In the same way I can say that the LNC is true; it possesses the property of "truth". My utterance would make no sense if there was nothing the property could be beared by. The LNC is real.If it is a real entity that does not automatically mean that it is physical. One good reason for thinking that the LNC is not physical is that it is necessarily true; it is true in all possible worlds. [5] No physical entity seems to be necessary in that sense. For instance, it seems eminently plausible to think that the laptop I am currently typing this on might not have existed - it is a contingent (not necessary) entity. Or, to put in possible world language: there is some possible world "w" in which at "w" my laptop doesn't exist. Now, it seems to be that any physical entity seems contingent in the very same way as my laptop is. It seems possible that a physical entity does not exist in at least one possible world. If the LNC is a non-physical, real entity what kind of thing could it be? The answer here is that it seems to be a thought. The reason to think this is because since the LNC is a proposition and propositions inherently possess the property of "intentionality". Intentionality is the "aboutness" of something. [6] For example, if I say I am tying on this laptop right now I intend (lol) to say something about the act of of my typing on this existent laptop. Thoughts seem to be about things. Right now I'm thinking "I better hurry up and finish this before time runs out." Obviously this thought is about this debate and the time limit and how I need to wrap this up. If propositions are all about things, and if the LNC is proposition, and if thoughts are what convey this intentionality, then the LNC is a thought.So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts.If the LNC is a necessarily true proposition and propositions are thoughts then the LNC is a necessarily true thought.Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world.If the LNC is true in every possible world, this must mean it exists in all possible worlds. Otherwise it would make sense to say the LNC is a truth in possible world w but the LNC doesn't exist in possible world w. Obviously that doesn't make sense.But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person.Thoughts always need to be had by something. It would make no sense to say no one is thinking these thoughts. The most obvious candidate for something having thoughts is a mind. But these are special kinds of thoughts; they are necessarily existent thoughts. Necessarily existent thoughts can't just be the thoughts of any ole mind; they have to be the thoughts of a necessarily existent mind. For instance, humans are contingent beings. We could have possibly not existed so obviously we the LNC being a necessarily existent thought could not just be identical to our thoughts. We know that the type of minds that entertain rational/logical thoughts are persons. So this mind must be possessed by a necessarily existent person. A necessarily existent person must be spiritual in nature, because no physical entity exists necessarily.I've established earlier that physical entities are contingent so this necessarily existent person couldn't possibly be physical.Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God.If we conceive of the spiritual as "non-physical" (among other things) then the conclusion seems to speak for itself. An immaterial, personal being who exists in all possible worlds? As Aquinas said, "and this everyone understands to be God."Sources[1] http://www.proginosko.com... (pg. 20)[2] "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...[5] http://plato.stanford.edu...[6] http://plato.stanford.edu...