CADRE Comments

A Rational Look at Christianity; Basing Reason in Truth

Fun with Logic: A Logical Proof that God is Dead

Philosopher Victor Reppert of Dangerous Idea has used logic to establish that God is dead in a post entitled "A proof that Bill Clinton was right, or was it Nietzsche?" Here is his logic:

1. God is Love.
2. Love is Blind.
3. Ray Charles is Blind.
4. Ray Charles is God.
To which we can now add the Nietzschean addendum
5. Therefore God is dead.

Obviously, this is tongue in cheek. Prof. Reppert is the author of C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea -- a book that one of the CADRE's favorite atheists, Richard Carrier, has attacked in a response that was longer than the original book. (Fortunately, Prof. Reppert is taking the time to respond to Mr. Carrier and part I of his response can be found here.) But it is interesting to note how he has managed to warp the logic in a syllogism to have it seem legitimate even though it obviously is not.

All Christians need to keep in mind that logic is an essential tool for the apologist and works in favor of God's existence when properly used. Prof. Reppert's post helps to remind us that a logical argument can look good, but still be fatally flawed. As stated by Prof. Reppert, "You can prove almost anything, so long as the meanings of words can be manipulated!"


Here is an extract from a genuine email by a Christian professor, greg Welty , showing how Christian logic can be used to defend the idea that we have one leg.

I am not making this up.....

As far as I can tell, you presented the following two statements in your earlier email:

[1] Everybody except me has one leg.

[3] My memory is that almost everybody has two legs.

You then raised the issue as to whether [1] and [3] are consistent. I think it's obvious that they are. Surely it's possible for most people to have one leg *and* that my memory is inaccurate in this regard. For those who want a formal proof of the consistency of [1] and [3], we could find a possibly true proposition that is consistent with [1] and together with [1] entails [3]. In your last email, you helpfully provided such a proposition:

[2] My memory has been corrupted by demons.

OK, then. You've applied Plantinga's procedure as a means of proving that [1] and [3] are consistent. But then, with the above example, you are illustrating for us the *cogency* of Plantinga's procedure!

You are not undermining it!


I think *cogent* Christian arguments leave a lot to be desired, if they can be used to show that human beings only have one leg.

Use of Content

The contents of this blog may be reproduced or forwarded via e-mail without change and in its entirety for non-commercial purposes without prior permission from the Christian CADRE provided that the copyright information is included. We would appreciate notification of the use of our content. Please e-mail us at