We observe reality; Logic is how we make sense of it.
Symbols and language (like “2 + 2 = 4”) are tools we use to describe the patterns we see in the universe (discovered via Logic).
Logic presupposes Truth; Truth creates and coheres individual distinctions (A=A) and the universe’s ordered structure (the patterns we see every day).
Truth must be non-contingent: existing before the universe (Eternal) in order for the universe to exist and cohere (A=A as “this ≠ that”).
Without Eternal Truth, reality wouldn’t exist (no A=A, including any abstraction built via Logic).
Simply: no Truth → no Logic → no coherent reality → no intelligibility that could refute the following claim (without contradiction):
Only an Eternal Origin explains the reality we observe—and denying it presupposes the Truth it rejects.
Van Til famously argued that “circular reasoning is the only reasoning possible to finite man” and that any truly non-circular ultimate argument is impossible.
Genuinely curious for honest feedback. Does the non-circular ascent hold up?
That is a very broad, very sweeping statement that itself could be the subject of a lengthy dissertation. Do we ‘observe reality’, or do our cognitive faculties decieve us? Does logic make sense of reality, or is logic a system of ideas that are internally consistent without reference to sense-data? And so on. All of these are questions that have been pondered by philosophers by millenia, and can’t be swept aside by declaration or assertion.
No, line 2 isn’t presupposing anything. It’s just a direct observation that we use symbols and languages to explain the patterns that we observe in reality (like π, Fibonacci, etc).
Even sceptical denial presupposes the coherence and ordered distinctions inherent in the reality we observe—else no intelligibility could subsist (line 6).
No, it’s not circular to assert what we actually observe in reality. Bacterial chemotaxis follows chemical gradients, animal migration aligns with recurrent environmental patterns, planetary orbits obey invariant mathematical ratios. This is just a direct observation. Or are you trying to deny that these patterns are inherent in reality?
It’s not circular to assert that we use Logic to make sense of things (line 1). “Discovered via Logic” in line 2 is simply the observable fact that we use symbols and language to describe the patterns we see in the universe.
The argument only reaches the conclusion at line 7.
imo, there are more people that run on emotion rather than logic
You’re speaking to one here who puts greater weight on subjective truth rather than objective truth. Can’t remember which ancient Greek said it, but it still holds - “man is the measure of all things.”
Why not?
I don’t understand how denying “eternal origins” presupposes any truth
I don’t “give myself” Logic. Logic is a necessary precondition for intelligibility. Without it we wouldn’t even exist or be able to make any intelligible claim.
You couldn’t even make that statement without using Logic. Any denial forces you into the exact performative contradiction of line 7:
Emotions are either logical or illogical—there is no contradiction there.
Your preference for “subjective truth” and the claim “man is the measure of all things” are themselves truth claims.
Any subjective worldview still requires stable distinctions (A=A, this ≠ that) that are themselves not subjective to function at all. Whether you accept it or reject it is irrelevant.
Because your worldview is entirely contingent on these stable distinctions (A=A), any denial of Eternal Truth presupposes the very Truth it rejects (line 7). That’s why denying it is a performative contradiction.
As others have said, we may or may not observe “reality”. IN addition, logic is only one of many ways we make sense of it. In science, this is the problem of induction. IN addition, other animals “make sense of (reality)”. Are they using “logic” to do so?
“You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” GK Chesterton
Suppose I presuppose that statements are true or false. Then I could deny “Only and Eternal Origin explains the reality we observe” – that is, claim that it is false – because I think that it is a statement and so can be true or false, which then goes to show that I can think the statement is true or false without presupposing an Eternal Origin – here I’m presupposing that statements are truth-pat, and so the argument that you’re alluding to amounts to not thinking of other possibilities.
Non-human systems inherently bind to stable distinctions across all scales—bacterial chemotaxis follows chemical gradients, animal migration aligns with recurrent environmental patterns, planetary orbits obey invariant mathematical ratios. Your epistemic/phenomenal containment claim therefore fails. If structure were purely mind-dependent, non-thinking systems could not exhibit such reliable, law-like behaviour.
Are you denying that we observe these patterns in reality?
I’m not using “Logic” in the narrow “deductive syllogisms only” sense. I’m using it in the broader sense of Relational Harmony—the alignment and application of the stable distinctions created and cohered by Truth. So yes, all animals (and even physical systems) navigate the universe’s ordered structure via Logic. Your supposed “many ways we make sense of it” still have to operate via that same alignment.
My argument is transcendental. It does not rely on inductive predictions about future events. It shows that without stable distinctions (A=A) reality itself would be impossible. You are using those exact distinctions right now to determine true from not-true. Without them you could not even function or raise the induction problem.
Your Chesterton quote actually confirms the argument. Logic requires stable distinctions created and cohered by Truth before it can even function. That is exactly what line 3 states:
In other words, there could be no Logic without Truth first.
Any coherent denial—including this one—still deploys the very stable distinctions and ordered structure it questions (lines 6–7).