Is there always a foothold for your beliefs? Do they go on forever or is there an ultimate standard/foothold?

Face it, we sinful humans hate ultimates. They are so . . . ultimate. There is no sense arguing with them. Sometimes they work in our favor, like when debating with people of different faiths, whereas other times they get in our way, like when we want to sin. All-in-all Christians have a hate-love relationship with ultimates and non-Christians just plain out hate them.

I, however, find them amazing. Lately, while reading through Jason Lisle’s book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, I learned a few things about a thing called an “ultimate standard”. From here I am confident I can answer such questions as, “where did logic come from?” This is my favorite question to answer and I believe “ultimate standards” have just become my favorite subjects in writing and talking.

I recently heard the statement that evolution makes sense in a “logic set mind.” I want to answer that claim below.

Every person’s ideas, beliefs, etc. have an ultimate standard. An ultimate standard is defined as something that stands alone as your “judge” for all your current beliefs. If you were to describe Christianity as your beliefs then your ultimate standard would (or should) be based on God’s morals and His teachings. Here is where I found the comment interesting.

This person said, “in a logic set mind, it makes sense.” However, where is logic based on? Where does that logic come from? Since we know all beliefs come from an ultimate standard we have to ask, “what is that person’s ultimate standard to say what is logic.” And, if you were to ask an evolutionist, who I believe he was referring to in this comment, about their ultimate standard they might say they believe in evolution and that is their standard of origins and beliefs. But, then you must ask, “How did logic come about from evolution?”

This brings up more cases where a ultimate standard has to be proven by itself, called a transcendental argument (evolutionists cannot make this argument for their beliefs). However, that is a talk for a different time. Anyway, my point is that, when trying to prove evolution, one cannot do it without stating irrational “facts” that disproves the ultimate standard. And, since that cannot be their ultimate standard, they must have a different one. Most often we find that in the belief of God, whether or not they want it to be.

Who can say that it is wrong to lie when they don’t believe in a God who sets those moral laws? Who can say murder is wrong? Who can say anything is wrong unless they have some kind of ultimate standard of God and the moral laws He has. My main reply to this comment would be this:

A logic set mind is based on an ultimate standard of God and since God and evolution do not mix in any form or way, we see that the logic set mind make sense with God, not evolution.

I then saw the question: “where did logic come from? Personally, I believe that logic comes [from] science.” I was only to happy to answer this here:

That is a very interesting and full question. Many people will answer it many ways but let me answer the above belief.

If you believe logic comes from science, then science must be the ultimate standard for logic. However, if science is the ultimate standard then there can be no ultimate standard for science. So, does science exist independently from logic? Can you have science without logic? See, I twisted it around so we can better understand it. If logic comes from science, then you must believe that logic cannot prove science (the ultimate standard because ultimate standards have to be proven by themselves), which is the opposite of what happens. We find that science can not be the source of logic since it needs logic to prove itself. You must have something independent of logic for it to be the cause of logic.

Can you think of evolution and how it can cause logic? Can logic come from evolution? One person might say you need logic to prove evolution so it can’t be the cause, but others would say there is no logic in evolution so it could kinda make it a ultimate standard about a belief about logic but it can’t prove evolution as a ultimate standard.

However, if you look at it like this, you can see that the laws of logic can easily be explained. Picture this: God makes the earth and all the laws. The laws of nature. The laws of logic. The laws of physics. And so on and so forth. However, for God, since He made the universe and has to exist independently from His creation to make His creation, we can see He must have made the laws of logic independent from Himself. You can use the laws of logic to “prove” God exists but if He doesn’t really exist under our “laws” then He can still be real without the laws of logic. It is the opposite with evolution. Without logic one cannot even explain evolution and thus it falls to pieces.

Think of it this way. I write a book where everyone has to start their sentences with the word “Yes”. So, in this book, the characters could use this “law” to describe me, the writer. They could explain me by starting everyone of the sentences with the word “yes”. However, since I created that law in the book, if I were to take it away, would I still be here? If the people in my book couldn’t describe me with their “law” would I still be real? Yes (no pun intended), because I exist under different “laws” as them.

So, as you can see, logic can only come from the ultimate standard of a belief in God. Hope this helps that burning question of where does logic come from.

I absolutely love this topic. I never knew I had such an interest in logic, but it is so fun. I can basically prove God’s existence by someone just asking, “where does logic come from?” It is amazing and I hope to write more on it soon.