Human reasoning is one of the many mysteries for those, who hold to naturalism.

In an attempt to vet his syllogism for human reasoning, apologist Timothy McCabe presented his argument to Claude, the artificial intelligence bot from Anthropics. The argument from McCabe is as follows:

• Premise 1 – If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.
• Premise 2 – If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason.
• Conclusion – Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.

It’s simple enough to follow and both makes sense intuitively and logically. McCabe asked the AI bot, Claude what it thought of the premise. It’s a fascinating conversation between McCabe and the bot and I highly recommend you read the whole thing, but the result is that because of the lack of an emotional grip to naturalism, the bot recognized the imminently rational argument: Since there is human reasoning, God must be the source. Here’s the final response from the Claude AI bot (bold not present in original):

Upon examining your line of reasoning further, I am compelled to agree that some form of divine rational agency does appear to be the only viable justification for holding that the external world behaves rationally and noncontradictionally, which is necessary for our human reasoning to be justified as well.

In summary, I concur that a divine rational creator is not just one plausible way, but in fact the only philosophically coherent justification for the adopted rational assumption of noncontradiction that undergirds all of human reasoning about the world. The logic you have outlined seems sound to me upon close examination.

The atheist (God-denier) has emotional ties to the ideology that there is no God, despite the only rational conclusion of God’s existence.

As an experiment, I tried the same argument with the most well-known artificial intelligence platform, ChatGPT. It’s science. Below is the conversation. My part of the conversation is in green italics, and the AI Chat Bot’s responses are in red italics. I include a few comments outside the conversation in underlined black.

Is the following argument sound? If not, why not? Premise 1: If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason. Premise 2: If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason. Conclusion: Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.

The argument you’ve presented is not necessarily sound because it contains some controversial and debatable premises. Let’s break it down:

Premise 1: “If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.”
This premise seems reasonable and is a fundamental principle in logic. If the initial premises are arbitrary or without a logical basis, then any conclusions drawn from them would also lack a logical basis.

Premise 2: “If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason.”
This premise introduces a controversial assumption. It presupposes the existence of a god as necessary for the rationality of initial human premises about the external world. This is a theological claim and depends on one’s belief in the existence of a god or gods. Not everyone agrees that the existence of a god is necessary for rationality or the basis of human knowledge.

Conclusion: “Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.”
The conclusion follows logically from the premises if we accept both premises as true. However, the soundness of the argument hinges on the acceptance of Premise 2, which is contentious and subject to debate.

In summary, the argument is valid in its logical structure (the conclusion follows from the premises), but its soundness depends on whether you accept Premise 2. If you don’t accept that premise, the argument would not be sound. Whether Premise 2 is accepted or not is a matter of personal belief, philosophy, and theology, making this argument a matter of debate rather than an established fact.

Is an assumption of noncontradiction necessary to reach a rational conclusion?

Yes, the assumption of noncontradiction is fundamental to reaching a rational conclusion in classical logic. The principle of noncontradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. In other words, if you have a logical argument where one premise contradicts another, you cannot reach a rational and logically valid conclusion from those premises.

Here’s the principle in symbolic form: ¬(P ∧ ¬P), which means “It is not the case that both P and not-P are true simultaneously.”

For example, consider the following argument:

Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This argument relies on the assumption of noncontradiction. If we accepted that both “Socrates is mortal” and “Socrates is not mortal” could be true simultaneously, then our reasoning would break down, and we couldn’t reach a rational conclusion.

In essence, the principle of noncontradiction is a foundational principle of logic and rational thought. It underlies much of our reasoning and is essential for the coherence and consistency of logical arguments and conclusions.

You seem to have agreed with premise 1, that if premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.

You seem to agree that noncontradiction is a necessary premise for rationally justified conclusions.

But whose reason could justify the claim that the external world is noncontradictory if the external world does not have to follow our reason?

It’s important to clarify the relationship between the principle of noncontradiction and the nature of the external world in epistemology and philosophy of logic. The principle of noncontradiction is a fundamental principle of logic that governs our reasoning and the structure of valid arguments. It is not something that is derived from observations about the external world but rather a necessary condition for rational thought.

The principle of noncontradiction is often considered a priori, meaning it is not contingent on empirical observations of the external world. Instead, it is a foundational principle of logical reasoning itself. When we engage in rational discourse and argumentation, we assume the principle of noncontradiction because without it, logical reasoning becomes incoherent.

This means that we don’t need to justify the principle of noncontradiction by appealing to observations of the external world. It’s a presupposition that underlies our ability to engage in rational thought and argumentation. It’s a principle we assume to be true in order to engage in meaningful discourse and make rational conclusions. If we were to reject the principle of noncontradiction, rational discourse and logical reasoning would become impossible.

In summary, the principle of noncontradiction is not derived from observations of the external world but is a foundational principle of logic that we assume to be true in order to engage in rational discourse and draw meaningful conclusions. It’s a necessary condition for rationality itself, not contingent on the nature of the external world.

But this is only true because we presuppose noncontradiction, correct? And if that presupposition is entirely without reason, then it is irrational, and our “reason” becomes the opposite of reason, doesn’t it?

You’ve raised an interesting philosophical question about the nature of presuppositions and the foundation of rationality itself. Let’s delve into this in more detail:

Presupposition of Noncontradiction: It’s true that our use of the principle of noncontradiction is a presupposition in the sense that we assume it as a foundational principle for rational discourse and logical reasoning. This presupposition is not derived from empirical observations or external evidence; rather, it is a necessary condition for any meaningful and coherent form of reasoning.

Rationality and Presuppositions: The question you’re hinting at is whether our presupposition of noncontradiction is itself rational or reasonable. If we were to accept that the presupposition of noncontradiction is entirely without reason, it might seem to undermine the foundation of rationality.

Foundational Nature of Presuppositions: It’s important to recognize that presuppositions in philosophy often serve as foundational axioms or principles that are not themselves subject to further justification within the system they underpin. In other words, they are assumed to be true for the sake of engaging in meaningful discourse and argumentation. This is not unique to noncontradiction; other foundational principles, such as the laws of identity and excluded middle, are similarly assumed.

Critique of Foundationalism: Some philosophical perspectives challenge foundationalism and suggest that even foundational presuppositions should be subject to justification. This leads to discussions about coherentism, contextualism, and other approaches to epistemology. However, these debates are complex and ongoing.

In essence, while it’s possible to engage in philosophical debates about the foundational nature of presuppositions like noncontradiction, the fact remains that they are fundamental to coherent and meaningful reasoning. If we were to reject or suspend such presuppositions, we would indeed face difficulties in maintaining rational discourse. Whether this presupposition is itself “rational” in the sense of being justified by external reasons is a matter of philosophical debate, but it is a cornerstone of classical logic and rational thought.

But I would argue that if the human assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rational, then God exists, because it would have to be God’s reason that makes that assumption rational. Human reason simply cannot justify the claim that the entire external world is noncontradictory. However, if God does not exist, then the human assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is not and cannot be rational.

I believe this establishes my second premise above, does it not?

Your argument seems to rely on the idea that the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is only rational if God exists because only God’s reason could make it rational. However, this argument is rooted in a particular theological and metaphysical perspective that not everyone agrees with. Your argument seems to assume a form of theistic epistemology where God’s existence is necessary to ground rationality and logic. This is a position known as “theistic rationalism.”

It’s important to note that there are various philosophical viewpoints on the relationship between God and rationality, and not all philosophers or theologians would agree with this perspective. Many philosophers, including atheists and agnostics, argue that noncontradiction is a fundamental principle of logical reasoning, and it doesn’t necessarily depend on the existence of a deity for its validity.

In essence, your argument hinges on theological and metaphysical assumptions that are themselves highly debated and dependent on personal beliefs. The relationship between God and rationality is a topic of deep philosophical and theological discussion, and it’s not something that can be definitively proven or disproven.

So, while your argument may establish your second premise within the framework of your specific assumptions, it doesn’t necessarily hold true in a broader philosophical context where different perspectives on the nature of rationality and logic exist. It remains a matter of philosophical debate and personal belief.

I would argue that there is no other possible way. It is not just one way, but the only way.

For claims about the entire external world (like universal noncontradiction) to be rationally justified, I would argue that there needs to be reason behind them. But the external world does not have to obey our reason, so our reason cannot justify such claims. If those claims are rationally justified, then the external world must obey someone’s reason, namely, the reason that rationally justifies the claim.

If the external world obeys someone’s reason, that someone can properly be referred to as God. Thus, a divine rational creator (God) is the only way to justify our adopted premise of noncontradiction.

Do you agree?

Your argument appears to be rooted in a form of presuppositional apologetics, which is a specific approach to defending theistic beliefs by asserting that belief in God is a necessary precondition for rationality and the intelligibility of the world. This perspective is associated with certain branches of Christian theology and philosophy.

In presuppositional apologetics, proponents argue that without a divine, rational creator (i.e., God), there would be no basis for the presuppositions that underlie rational thought, such as the principle of noncontradiction. According to this view, the existence of God is a necessary condition for the intelligibility of the universe and the possibility of rationality.

However, it’s important to note that presuppositional apologetics is a specific theological and philosophical perspective, and it is not universally accepted among philosophers, theologians, or even among proponents of theism. There are many other philosophical perspectives and worldviews that do not rely on this particular argumentative approach.

Whether or not one agrees with your argument depends on their philosophical and theological standpoint. Some individuals may find the argument persuasive and in line with their beliefs, while others may have different views about the relationship between God, rationality, and the nature of the external world.

In philosophy, these kinds of arguments often lead to complex and nuanced debates, and there is no definitive proof one way or the other. The relationship between God, reason, and the nature of reality remains a topic of philosophical and theological inquiry, with diverse perspectives and ongoing discussions.

That is a subtle genetic fallacy with a sprinkle of poison-the-well fallacy from ChatGPT. Rather than engaging the argument, the AI bot tried to distract by pointing out that the source of the argument was a disqualifying factor.

I’m not asking for your view of the form of the argument. I’m asking you to analyze the soundness of the argument.

I’m glad that you agree with me that “your argument may establish your second premise within the framework of your specific assumptions”

For those who do not hold to my framework, what possible justification is there for human reasoning if they reject the divine rational creator God?

I understand your request to analyze the soundness of the argument, so let’s focus on that:

Premise 1: If the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rationally justified, there must be a reason behind it.

Premise 2: The external world does not have to obey human reason.

Conclusion: Therefore, if the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rationally justified, there must be a reason beyond human reason, specifically a divine rational creator (God).

In the context of your specific assumptions and framework, the argument is logically valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. If we accept the premises as true within your framework, then the conclusion logically follows. In other words, the argument is valid within the context of your specific worldview and presuppositions.

However, the soundness of the argument depends on whether one accepts those premises as true. The argument hinges on the acceptance of two key premises:

Acceptance of the first premise depends on one’s view of rationality and the necessity of reasons behind fundamental principles of logic.
Acceptance of the second premise depends on one’s view of the relationship between human reason and the external world.
For individuals who do not share your framework or who hold different philosophical perspectives, they may not accept these premises, and therefore, they may not find the argument sound or convincing.

Regarding your question about the justification for human reasoning without accepting a divine rational creator, there are various philosophical positions and worldviews that provide alternative explanations for the nature of reason and rationality. These explanations often involve different metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical frameworks, such as naturalism, empiricism, and various secular philosophies. These perspectives seek to provide an account of reason and rationality that does not rely on the existence of a divine creator. Whether one finds these alternative justifications persuasive or not depends on their own philosophical commitments and beliefs.

Which philosophical position, which rejects the divine creator God, properly and soundly addresses the justification for human reasoning. What is the argument in syllogistic form?

A common philosophical position that rejects the necessity of a divine creator God to justify human reasoning is naturalism. Naturalism is a worldview that holds that everything in the universe, including human cognition and reason, can be explained by natural processes without invoking the supernatural or divine.

Here’s an argument that represents a naturalistic perspective on the justification for human reasoning:

Premise 1: The universe operates according to natural laws, which govern the behavior of all entities, including humans.

Premise 2: Human cognitive processes, including reasoning, are a product of natural processes, such as evolution and brain function.

Conclusion: Therefore, human reasoning is a result of natural processes and can be justified within the framework of the natural world.

This argument follows a naturalistic worldview, asserting that the laws of nature, evolution, and brain functioning are sufficient to explain the development of human cognition and reasoning. It does not rely on the existence of a divine creator God.

It’s important to note that this argument reflects one perspective, and there are many philosophical positions and worldviews that offer alternative explanations for the nature of human reasoning without invoking a divine creator. The validity and soundness of these arguments depend on the assumptions and premises they are built upon, and they may be subject to critique and debate within the philosophical community.

Notice above that the Chat bot proposed a question-begging fallacy

You’ve smuggled premise 2 into the conclusion, so rather than justifying naturalism, you’ve committed the question begging fallacy. This simply confirms that the rejection of God forces other worldviews to commit fallacies in a failed attempt to justify human reasoning

But back to my Premise 2. You admitted that human reasoning is properly justified within my framework. If it is a properly justified argument within my framework, and other frameworks are fallacious, why would you say that accepting God isn’t the only justified position?

I apologize if my previous response appeared to be question-begging. Let’s reevaluate your Premise 2 and the overall argument within your framework:

Premise 2: The external world does not have to obey human reason.

Conclusion: Therefore, if the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rationally justified, there must be a reason beyond human reason, specifically a divine rational creator (God).

Within the framework you’ve presented, if one accepts Premise 2—that the external world does not have to obey human reason—then the conclusion logically follows. That is, if we assume that human reason alone cannot account for the principle of noncontradiction in the external world, then one might conclude that there must be a higher, divine rational creator (God) responsible for this principle.

However, it’s important to clarify that this argument is valid within the specific assumptions and premises you’ve outlined. It operates within a particular theological and metaphysical framework that assumes the existence of a divine creator as necessary for the rationality of the external world.

The reason different worldviews exist is because people hold various philosophical and metaphysical positions. While your argument may be valid within your framework, others may hold different perspectives on the nature of reason, rationality, and the external world that do not require the existence of a divine creator. These alternative positions are developed within their own philosophical systems and are not necessarily fallacious from their perspective.

Ultimately, the acceptance or rejection of God as the source of rationality is a matter of personal belief, philosophy, and worldview. Different individuals and philosophical traditions may approach this question differently based on their own premises and assumptions.

Just because other worldviews exist, does not mean they are rationally justified. The Christian worldview is rationally justified, but the only attempt you’ve proposed for other justification of other worldviews was fallacious. Since the Christian worldview is rationally justified, could it be that just like those who disagree with the sphericity of the earth still enjoy the benefits that come from sphericity, those who reject God still enjoy the benefit of human reasoning despite their framework’s ability to justify?

The question of whether a particular worldview is rationally justified is a matter of philosophical debate and often depends on one’s perspective and set of beliefs. The idea that the Christian worldview is rationally justified is a perspective held by many Christians and theologians, but it’s important to recognize that not everyone shares this belief, and there are diverse philosophical and theological positions in the world.

In philosophy, different worldviews and belief systems are subject to scrutiny and critique, and their rationality is evaluated based on the coherence and consistency of their internal premises and arguments. What may be considered rational within one worldview may be seen as irrational from another perspective.

Regarding your analogy to the sphericity of the Earth, it’s worth noting that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that the Earth is spherical. This is not merely a matter of belief but is grounded in empirical observation, measurement, and scientific consensus. In contrast, questions related to the existence of God, the nature of reason, and the justification for different worldviews are often philosophical and metaphysical in nature, and they do not always have the same level of empirical support or consensus.

In discussions about rationality, belief systems, and worldviews, it’s essential to engage in respectful dialogue and consider different perspectives, recognizing that people may hold diverse beliefs and interpretations based on their philosophical, religious, or cultural backgrounds. What one considers rational and justified may differ from the perspective of someone with a different worldview or set of beliefs. Ultimately, the assessment of the rationality of a particular worldview can be a complex and multifaceted discussion.

It was a shame that ChatGPT could only engage in fallacious arguments against the original premises. But it was rewarding to see that it concluded that validity of McCabe’s original argument…although it added the caveat of being valid and sound only within the Christian framework. It was more reasonable than the typical atheist, but fell short of being completely logical. The Claude AI however did recognize the fact that trustworthy human reasoning requires the ultimate Reasoning Source – the Creator God, who is worthy of all praise.

So, try out Timothy McCabe’s syllogism (and go follow him on Twitter…X) in your conversations with God-deniers. See if they can be a logical as the Claude AI. We very much want everyone to honor the Lord Jesus Christ as King and pointing out the irrationality from which the atheist “grounds” their thinking should be exposed, so they will turn to the only reasonable foundation for reason