Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for the Existence of God


By James N. Anderson and Greg Welty

“What is the relationship between the laws of logic and the existence of God? Perhaps the most obvious thing to say is that there is an epistemological relationship between the two, such that the existence of God—more precisely, rational belief in the existence of God—depends on the laws of logic. In the first place, any argument one might offer for the existence of God must conform to the laws of logic: the law of non-contradiction, the rules of deductive inference, and so forth. Furthermore, many would maintain that the concept of God must conform to the laws of logic as a precondition of rational belief in the existence of God. (This seems implicit even in a “Reformed Epistemology” view which says that rational belief in God doesn’t have to depend on arguments.) In this paper we do not propose to explore or contest those epistemological relationships. Instead we will argue for a substantive metaphysical relationship between the laws of logic and the existence of God, with the arrow of dependence running in the opposite direction. In other words, we will argue that there are laws of logic because God exists; indeed, there are laws of logic only because God exists. If we are correct about this metaphysical relationship, it is but a short step to a fascinating and powerful but neglected argument for the existence of God.”

Download it here:


4 thoughts on “Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for the Existence of God

  1. Ah, the gift that keeps on giving…

    *****comment edited by admin*******

    Cedric, I’m happy to entertain any thoughts you might have about the subjects I discuss on this website, but I will not allow you to continue to mock the hard work and intellectual effort that myself and others put in to the articles I post here. Please keep your comments free from mocking. Thanks.

    1. *****comment edited by admin*******

      You didn’t “edit” my comment, Dan. You censored it. Shame on you for not even being able to be up-front and honest about it.

      I will not allow you to continue to mock the hard work and intellectual effort…

      I took the article and (gasp) exchanged the labels. Didn’t change anything else. Didn’t need to.

      A parody religion or mock religion is an imitation belief system that challenges spiritual convictions of others, often through humor, satire, and/or burlesque. Often created to achieve a specific purpose related to another belief system, a parody religion can be a parody of several religions, sects, gurus, cults, and or new religious movements at the same time or a parody of no particular religion, instead parodying the concept of religious belief.(…) The theist might say “No one can prove that God does not exist, therefore an atheist is exercising faith by asserting that there is no God.” Dawkins argues that by replacing the word “God” with “Thor” one should see that the assertion is fallacious. The burden of proof, he claims, rests upon the believer in the supernatural, not upon the non-believer who considers such things unlikely. Athorism is an attempt to illustrate through absurdity that there is no logical difference between disbelieving any particular religion.

      It’s your blog and your rules but the criticism that I’m leveling doesn’t go away. This is the internet and the internet is not something you can censor. As a community, religious people have to somehow come up with a way to tackle the label switching effectively.
      Just blocking it out and hoping it will somehow disappear and never get mentioned again won’t help. It’s a sign of weakeness. There’s no effective counter. Look for yourself…

      For example…

      Rather, I think this is a mere rhetorical move designed to marginalize current concepts of God by associating them with now defunct concepts, and Zeus is ideal in this regard because he is widely known in popular culture and yet obviously not widely believed in.

      Nope. That’s not it. Randal Rauser has swung and missed the point completely.

      Atheists commonly use an argument like “well I don’t believe in Zeus or Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster so God must not exist either”

      Well, no VitalOne. They don’t. This is a strawman. Otherwise there’d be a quote. This also belongs in the “confused Christian missing the point” box.

      Zeus, Thor, FSM, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Judeo-Christian God, and other Gods all have different attributes, characteristics and properties.


      Yes, but Superman and Batman presumably also have…um…different attributes, characteristic and properties.

      But this argument doesn’t make sense. Even if there was no good reason to choose God of the Bible over any other, this isn’t a good argument for atheism. Let me explain. Atheism says we should dismiss all gods. But even if I didn’t know which one of several options is true, that doesn’t mean I should dismiss them all. Just because someone don’t know what the hundredth digit of π is, does not mean that we should dismiss the fact there is one.

      Spot the inbuilt assumption, “Thoughtful Faith”. Try extra hard.

      I think I would start with Christianity being a faith that is rooted in history, ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ…

      Ah, Victoria. That’s a great start. It’s a wonderful start. It’s…just perfect. I wouldn’t change a thing.

      Not to be outdone, alozsax chimes in with… I think the problem I see nowadays is that it’s difficult to call the person out when they use this Thor piece and have them take you seriously. They know that actually following through and arguing for Thor’s existence is a lot of work…


      This is the general state of play at the moment. Can you find any better ones? If so, let’s have ‘em.
      (Please note that when I want to critique religious people, I don’t have to make up fiction. I just do a quick google and quote them. I’m honest that way.)

  2. Hi again, DanOhBrian,

    After leaving my earlier comment, I thought I’d poke around your blog a little to see what I might find.

    And lo and behold, I came across this posting of Anderson and Welty’s paper: “Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for the Existence of God.”


    Luckily, Dawson Bethrick has thoroughly examined their work in the following two blog entries:

    Are the Laws of Logic “Thoughts” of the Christian God?

    Reaction to My Critique of Anderson and Welty’s “The Lord of Non-Contradiction”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s