The 2nd law of logic

The 2nd law of logic is one of the most useful tools believe it or not, though we generally use it in our day to day lives when making decisions. This is the law that makes sense out of the human language as we know it today and maintains the fact that our language is fixed and unchangeable. It states, as according to Aristotle that "One can not say of something that it is "a" and "non-a" both in the same respect and at the same time." This is otherwise known as the law of noncontradiction. Try to find people nowadays who abuse this and create fallacies, and they simply abound. So basically, a giraffe kangaroo can not exist. Neither can square circles and circle squares to give a fundamental answer. So where does this objective immutable and fixed law come from? Well obviously God is the only one possible of creating such an example, and mankind has been sufficient enough to be able to discover it for themselves. God obviously wants the language to be fixed that he created. So now then, whats the importance of this law of logic? Its important to the OTHER laws of logic, such as, the law of excluded middle, the law of identity, the law of cause and effect and the law of finality. Once we have determined that something can not be "a" and "non-a" we apply the other laws. The law of excluded middle is fundamentally important in the fact that it sets up and "either-or" proposition, which is the only way we can truly have serious meaning in our language. Something must be either a giraffe or a kangaroo, but clearly can not be both. In a seminar at one point, Ravi Zecharias pointed out a fundamental flaw to a Philosophy he called "the and-both" Philosophy. Zecharias claims, "So I either use the 'and-both' philosophy or nothing at all." To this, everyone looked on in stunned amazement and the speaker had to concede he was wrong with his presentation and that his Philosophy was flawed and self refuting. When we have established this, what then can be stated for the other laws of logic? The law of identity is IMPORTANT to our metaphorical lingustic concepts. We can identify a to be a, so a is a or a=a are both equivalents. This allows us to be able to associate words with an identical subsequent observation of what we would call an animal, "animal" or an observation of the sky that we would call "sky." Cause and effect is the third law of logic, which is often violated by Scientists who adhere to Evolution. A cause must give an effect. So the effect can not occur without a cause. This is where Naturalism falls flat on its face. We can question a Scientist into determining that our Creator God was responsible for creating the Universe and the planets as we know them today. God is the cause, the world is the effect. Then we can also get the question, what caused God? HOWEVER, God is the creator of the laws of logic (He is logic as determined by John 1:1 "In the beginning was logos and logos was with God and logos was God"). So we are comparing apples and oranges at this point because we are applying finite principles capable of being understood by mankind created by God with an infinite God who is omniscient himself. The cause and effect principle ends with God. The law of finality is the final one we get to. This alleviates statements like, "The world's creation is all based around speculation." If thats the case, this statement has been murdered by the law of finality. It does not establish a formal conclusion to the matter. However, we also have another fundamental issue. If this statement is the case, this statement demonstrates that the world was created and the revolving speculation regarding the speculation is self defeating because this makes the statement about the world's creation mean that the world was created and we are now not speculating. Creation implies a Creator and we can not get around that. The Creator is God. So we can in effect use the laws of logic to prove God....but then again, this is impractical in a sense because we truly do not have to prove God. This is the Atheistic method of practice. A good friend of mine one time asked me, "The statement concerning that we must prove anything to believe it falls on the Atheist. Do we need to prove everything to the Atheist in order for him to believe in God?" NO! This statement can not be proven through empirical evidence and it requires faith. The burden of proof falls against the Atheistic position and makes the statement and position of Atheism falls. The default position therefore, is God and the burden of proof is against the Skeptic. Atheism is refuted philosophically, and Agnosticism and Skepticism are refuted philosophically. Let me show you how on the other two. Agnosticism makes the claim that if there is a God, we can not know anything about God. This is problematic in that its making a claim that is known about God, so the statement violates the 2nd law of logic. Skepticism is "We can never be absolute certain about the existence of God." This implies something regarding the absolute certainty of the existence of God. This statement is self refuting and false. Atheism is, "As a finite being, I do not believe there is a God." However, you need to know everything in order to prove Atheism to be true. As a finite being, this gentleman would have to be able to go to every planet and know EVERY SINGLE piece of information to disprove God. Since we can not disprove God's existence and this is a Philosophical question, and the burden of proof falls against the skeptics, we can be absolutely certain of God's existence. We can be absolutely certain of that which we can't deny. We can't deny God, so we are absolutely certain that God is a real infinite being who created us. He is noncontingent on anything as mentioned in the Santa Claus and Invisible Pink Unicorn Proposition. The question, WHO is God is another question that will be addressed in a separate Blog. The results may very well shock you. Can you believe, there is actual evidence that Jesus Christ was God? You will soon know the truth.