Feedback archiveFeedback 2016

God, miracles, and logic

Why do atheists call the miracle-working God a ‘magic man in the sky’? And how do atheists account for the laws of logic? Jackson C. from the United States comments:


God does not perform miracles arbitrarily: He uses miracles in His providential care of history in a purposeful and logistically careful way. (Joshua Commanding the Sun to Stand Still upon Gibeon by John Martin)

Nearly every skeptic I have ever encountered had the same problem with believing in the Bible. It was God performing miracles, which they in turn use to equate God with a “magic man in the sky” (even though the sky is part of finite creation and God exists outside of creation).

I’ve read Sarfati’s article on miracles and science, but it didn’t seem to help me in addressing the whole “magic man” argument. When atheists call God imaginary, are they also calling the laws of logic and unchanging moral laws imaginary as well? I think this may be the answer I’m looking for, but I do not know how atheists account for the existence of the laws of logic. No man can be the source of the laws of logic, so that would thoroughly debunk the “magic man” claim. I’m scared of going to atheist websites because they’re mean, lolz:(

I cannot thank CMI enough for everything you do. I’m a big fan of Sanford, Sarfati, and Wieland. Your books and articles have greatly expanded my knowledge. Thank you.

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

When an atheist misrepresents God as a ‘magic man in the sky’, it’s not an argument; it’s an insult. But there’s an unvoiced belief behind it that can be put into an argument: if God does miracles, God is arbitrary, and we therefore couldn’t trust that science would work if God existed. But this is nonsense. As you point out, God is rational. He’s also unchangeably rational.

There are also reasons for God to sustain the world in ways that seem to us ‘immovable’. For instance, God would sustain the world so we could make choices in it. But to be able to make choices, we need to be able to expect our choices to result in consistent consequences. For instance, the choice to walk requires the world to behave in consistent ways for us to be able even to put one foot in front of another. If we couldn’t expect a consistent consequence when we make a particular choice, then we wouldn’t be able to choose anything, which undermines pretty much everything about us, not least of which would be our ability to relate to God. As such, not even the Christian theist would expect God to do earth-shattering miracles all the time, and He certainly wouldn’t do anything that destroys our ability to make choices—that would be inconsistent with both His perfect mind and perfect character. Miracles, especially if they reveal God to us in a special way, don’t automatically contradict this, and an all-knowing God would certainly know how to use miracles in the world in ways that don’t destroy our ability to make choices. For more on this, please see Miracles and Science, Defining arguments away—the distorted language of secularism, and Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps.

But why would God bother to ‘intervene’ with miracles? The simplest reason is that He may wish to communicate more about himself than we can learn through general revelation. This becomes especially poignant when we realize that God is morally perfect and we are not (Romans 3:23). A morally perfect God can’t simply ignore our sin, and without His special intervention to reconcile us to himself, we would all be doomed. So, does He refuse to intervene and let us all perish, or does He do something to restore us to himself? It seems pretty obvious that a gracious God who steps into history to offer an olive branch to His enemies is more praiseworthy than a god who just lets us all suffer. As James says: “Mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13). And that of course is precisely what we claim God did in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. For more on this, please see Is God obscure and arbitrary in what He wants from us? and Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?

Now, as to the question of whether an atheist can account for the laws of logic, they would say that truths like ‘a rock is a rock’ and ‘a rock is not a car’ are true regardless of whether a mind exists or not. They might parse this out in a couple of different ways. One option is to say that the laws of logic, along with numbers, truths, properties etc. are abstract objects; i.e. they are objects that have no causal power, but exist necessarily and independently of anything else. As such, the existence of God is irrelevant to the question, since these objects would exist independently of God whether or not He existed. Another option is to say that the laws of logic are not things needing an explanation, since the laws of logic don’t ‘exist’ like a chair or a bee or a star ‘exists’. Rather, the ‘laws of logic’ are just descriptions of the essential self-consistent nature of reality. In other words, they would say that the structure of reality is inescapably logical, even if physical reality is all there is.

One way around this is an argument for God known as the argument from concepts for God’s existence, which treats e.g. numbers and the laws of logic as objects of a special type—ideas. The argument runs like this: the laws of logic are ideas, and ideas can only exist in minds, but since the laws of logic exist necessarily, the laws of logic must be constituted in a necessary mind, such as God, therefore God must exist (for more information, please see Ronald Nash’s argument from numbers). This argument rests on the notion that ideas are real objects (like chairs and stars) that can only reside in minds. But if that’s not true, then the argument fails. And there is debate even among theists over whether the laws of logic are ideas, and whether ideas are really existing things. As such, not every theist would consider this argument for God sound. Nonetheless, it’s an open question. So if you choose to use this argument, just beware that the atheist may reject the argument in similar ways to how some theists would.

Another possible solution is that the theist can agree that the laws of logic are not ‘things’, but are just our descriptions of the essential self-consistent nature of reality. In this case, rather than making the laws of logic things that are somehow dependent on God for their existence, the theist could say that ‘logic’ is just a description of how God’s mind works; i.e. God is logical. This doesn’t necessarily put theism and atheism on level footing, since there are arguments for God that argue for His necessity and don’t rely on the laws of logic being actual objects—e.g. moral arguments, arguments from contingency,1 and ontological arguments. If these arguments are successful, they would show that while the atheistic analysis of the laws of logic in itself is coherent, saying that this is true ‘even if God doesn’t exist’ is ultimately incoherent, since God necessarily exists. Rather, the logical structure of reality is ultimately grounded in God’s logical nature. For more information, please see Did God create time?, Does God depend on logic to exist? and Is God 'simple'?

Whether we believe logic is an object or not, the facts that God cannot fail to exist, and is himself perfectly logical, provide plausible explanatory grounds for logic that atheism simply lacks. And since God is perfectly logical, we can trust that the way He providentially orders miracles in history will also be logistically solid.

References and notes

  1. Arguments from contingency ask the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’, and conclude that God is the naturally necessary being that provides the ultimate reason why anything at all exists. Return to text
Arguments from contingency ask the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’, and conclude that God is the naturally necessary being that provides the ultimate reason why anything at all exists.

Related Articles

Further Reading

Readers’ comments
Gian Carlo B., Puerto Rico, 19 March 2016
Once again, another score for the plausibility of the essentialist position regarding God and natural/abstract laws. Concepts that are self-evident and axiomatic (e.g: truth, numbers, logic, morality, etc.), cannot be subscribed to an action from God nor something outside of God, rather, these are the essences of who and what God is. God is the embodiment of truth and wisdom, numbers are God's Mind way of working and nine rating much like logic. Of course, numbers is a little odd since those are properties of descriptive language much like letters of an alphabet, rather, the input of these properties (rules of language in general and laws thereof), are the essential thought processes God has by nature as an infinitely wise and intelligent Being. This is why we share these properties without adherence to a belief system. We don't need to be a Buddhist nor an atheist to affirm 2++2=4 or how eating is a verb and not a noun. This is epistemology, as for ontology, the question is not if you believe X philosophy/religion, you cannot know Y, rather, given your adherence to X system, Y under the context of X1 may not be consistent under the system of X2, and so forth. This is why it's important to address the ontology of morality in terms of their accountability in certain belief systems and not their epistemological nature.
Richard L., United Arab Emirates, 19 March 2016
Re miracles: It is helpful to get a theological definition of miracles, and of laws of nature. Biblically: Heb. 1:3, "he upholds [active participle] the universe by the word of his power", and Col. 1:17, "in him, all things cohere". If Jesus ever paused in this moment-by-moment upholding/generating of the universe, it would cease to exist. Ongoing supernatural intervention is needed for nature to stay in existence. This is our worldview. Logically, Jesus can format the universe any way he wants, moment-by-moment. Liking order (1 Cor. 14) and life--and since constant change would make life impossible (furthering Shaun's discussion)--Jesus uses a standard format almost all the time. We investigate interesting features in that format and label them "laws of nature". Localized exceptions to the standard format are supernatural miracles. Since the laws of nature are totally dependent on God for their existence, they have no jurisdiction for miracles to violate. Both can co-exist. Christians--within the dominion mandate--need and want to investigate the cause-effect layers within the standard format. This study doesn't marginalize God! And, Christians DON'T "throw out all the laws of science" while leaving room for miracles. Make atheists acknowledge this! Most phenomena in space-time/history nature (1) start with supernatural causation, (2) the cause-effect trail for them extends through several layers within nature, (3) before the phenomena manifest visibly, and (4) produce cause-effect consequences within nature. Miracles such as The Feeding-5000 skip only Step (2). Step (4) includes 12 baskets of scraps. Even when miracles occur, science still has stuff to investigate! Ask atheist friends, thus, why they hate miracles. Pray for their getting insight.
john P., Australia, 19 March 2016
I would think most atheists, despite considering themselves rational and logical, are basically irrational and illogical, lacking in common sense even. This seems consistent with the foolishness of those who reject God and try to run from Him. I think the Bible mentions God sending a delusion on those who have no love for the truth and giving them up to perverse ways.
Joseph M., United Kingdom, 20 March 2016
I thank CMI for allowing comments for proper understandings of articles. God's miracles relies on the experience of consistency to reveal higher truths for our salvation. For believers, if objects or things did not exist (i.e no universe), logic is still true because 'God exists' is the axiom. 'God is God' and 'God is not non God' is still true. So there's is something that can create out of nothing. For atheists, God doesn't exist. If logic is imaginary or created then it's impossible to logically deduce the beginnings of logic for 'before' is illogical which negates the use of mathematics and the assumption of rationality and uniformity for a determination of logics creation! Alternatively, evolutionary philosophy cannot account for an always existing logic, if evolution (everything's creator) is just change over time, denying absolutes. In our reality, intelligence and logic coexists. Intelligence is not illogical and logic is not unintelligibility. If logic always was, then intelligence always was. The biblical view of God accounts for intelligence and logics unmovable consistency. intelligence and logic is the nature of God. God is eternal, so His nature is eternal, so logic is eternal. God is not illogical for illogicality means Untruth, Unrighteousness, etc. We are made in Gods Image, so our thoughts are logical until we reject Truth. God cannot reject Himself (P is not no P) so could never be illogical.
David G., United States, 20 March 2016
Couple observations: 1)to say "God is logical" is to risk reducing God merely to a human level and deny his transcendence. All kinds of "logic" exist among people, believers and the unconverted because all are sinners and subject to distortion. Better is the fact that 2)the Bible never tries to prove God, though it clearly states that creation displays his wisdom, power and deity and EVERYONE KNOWS THIS, though they suppress and distort it (Ps.19, Rom.1, et al). God has promised to bless his word, not abstract arguments about his possible existence. The first fact is "God is, therefore creation is". Let us use the word of God with people regardless of their agreement; for this is the Holy Spirit's own inspired tool to convict and convert people over any and all of their "arguments" or "logic" to the contrary.
Shaun Doyle responds
All we mean by 'God is logical' is that God is perfectly self-consistent, i.e. that He can't deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Obviously, people can misapply this idea by reducing God to their own ideas of what's possible. Arianism and open theism are two examples of this error—the former rejects the Trinity as a logical incoherence, and the latter denies the coherence of God's exhaustive foreknowledge and human freedom. That's why the Bible is our primary guide for knowledge about God—we can’t always trust our minds to conceive of God accurately. But just because our finite and fallen minds can distort our understanding of logic, it doesn't mean they can't apprehend the real thing. And the doctrine of God's perfect self-consistency gives us is a way to rule out meaningless talk about God. For instance, to say 'God is beyond our ability to fully comprehend' isn't problematic, since we lack the ability to fully comprehend many things; but to say 'God is beyond all knowledge' is self-refuting nonsense, since we could not know that statement if it was true. It can also help us to define divine attributes in coherent ways in response to skeptical objections, such as the so-called 'omnipotence paradoxes'. For more information, please see Caged lions …
Dave J., South Africa, 22 March 2016
As with most things, one needs to go back to Gen 1-3 for insights. When I talk, one wouldn't call it a natural phenomena - it's an unnatural one but still adheres to the laws governing creation because I am part OF creation. When God talks, one wouldn't call it a natural phenomena - it's an unnatural one but doesn't need to adhere to the laws governing creation because He is OVER creation. To me, that's the difference - miracles are God talking to His creation. We need to listen to Him!