Help me critique a logical argument?

Here is the argument I am working towards:

Premise 1: All states of matter change over time
Premise 2: Changing states of matter is only possible if there is a constant to measure the change
Premise 3: Fixed states of matter don’t exist
Argument 1: If fixed states of matter don’t exist, then matter changes over time
Argument 2: If the only constant for matter is change, then either all matter always existed or all matter began to exist
Argument 3: Matial properties began to exist at a specific point in time
Argument 4: All matter has a first cause.
Argument 5: The first cause of all matter must be immaterial, timeless and motionless (or all present) [I might need help with making this point]
Argument 6: The cause of all matter must have all power over all matter at all times if there are no fixed states of matter
Argument 7: An intelligence behind the beginning of all material is necessary or else matter would cease to change
Argument 8: An all powerful, all present intelligence created all matter [need help making this point]
Argument 9: An all powerful, all present intelligence controls all change of all matter at all times
Argument 10: God has all power over all material
Argument 11: God can change all matter according to His intelligence
Argument 12: Matter cannot fully measure itself
Argument 13: Humans are made of matter and cannot fully measure matter
Argument 14: God changes matter Humans cannot measure
Argument 15: God does miracles

Any feedback welcome :slight_smile:

1 Like

I am wondering if I need a step between 1&2, 4&5, 6&7, 7&8, if 12 is necessary.

Thanks for any answers.

Hi Jesse
Interesting; are you proposing to prove the existence of miracles definitively or are you aiming to show it’s possible they can happen?

Premise 2 seems to erase Premise 1 or at least introduce a circular logic problem…?

If all states of matter change over time(premise 1), what constant matter are you proposing to use to measure the change against (premise 2)?

Premise 3 is just restating the same as premise 1 in the opposite.

Great post to starting the thinking process. :slight_smile:

Hi @matthew.western

There is the idea of the “unmoved mover” which is an argument made for God’s existance and I am tying that into the rest of the argument. I might have to support it better because it seems you didn’t understand why/how that was necessary.


1 Like

Ah. Do you have any references to the original argument of the ‘unmoved mover’.

Yes, sorry; all I can see is what appears to be circular logic in the premises. :slight_smile: Hoping others will chime in with some solutions; I don’t try and write new arguments for Gods existence. I’m quite happy with the Cosmological Kalam and the Moral arguments (and perhaps the Fine Tuning argument to go with the Cosmological one); because they tie directly into what Scripture says we intrinsically know; the outside world exists; and must have come from somewhere. And that moral obligations exist, and I have fallen short of the standard of perfect. I have this ‘ought’ inbuilt…

Especially the moral argument because it’s not just an intellectual experiment; we all ask ourselves each and every day ‘How do I know right from wrong?’; and then we go live our lives based on this.

I like the animated versions of these arguments by Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig):


1 Like

Hi Matt!

Thanks for staying involved with this thread. I am kinda borrowing from a fair few different logical arguments. In that way, it’s really a hodge podge of different logical arguments rolled into one.

As far as an Unmoved Mover is concerned, you can read about it on wikipedia here:

You are perhaps right that the third premise isn’t necessary. I was just trying to be more thorough then less, but I still find some gaps. It’s very hard to come up with things like this and this is probably my third draft for this one. I guess I do these things because it’s fun for me. I am sure you can see I introduce elements of the Kalam and Cosmological argument in this. Usually scholars do this, but I just do it for fun and not for any kind of “Proof” really, though I might use something like this in my online evangelism. However, where my logical argument differs is I am trying to show that God does miracles.

Thanks again for your interest in this thread.

1 Like

Thanks, I’d not heard of that before, but then I haven’t studied Aristotle at all, nor done any philosophy training.

Interestingly from the wikipedia article it mentions that the cosmlological argument might be attributed to him; and yet Aristotle seemed to believe in an eternal universe. An eternal universe doesn’t need a first cause. Yet of course today we know that the universe had a beginning; science has shown us the universe is expanding; and therefore (winding that backwards) must have had a beginning.

I just finished the book from Abdu Murray ‘Saving Truth’; which was pretty heavy going especially for the first couple of chapters. One quote I loved and remember from the end was this little gem where he quotes Robert Jastow “scientists climbed the mountain of cosmological knowledge only to find a group of theologians had been there for centuries”…
(screen capture just pasted from the google preview of the book).


yes, I enjoy this type of thing too; I think perhaps we enjoy thinking and exploring the world in many ways; because God made humanity this way on purpose and also He made the universe in a way that could be explored. (that wasn’t my idea, I remember reading something along those lines)

1 Like

I think Premise 2 has issues as well. You could have two different material things which are in a state of change; it’s quite possible that both could be changing. To be able to observe this change I would need to be external to both of those things (perhaps?). I could quite easily notice that a ball is falling; and a plant is swaying in the wind; however I know that I am also ageing and am changing as well. But I happen to know that the earth is rotating, and the earth is rotating around the sun. All of these things are possible; and yet I don’t have access to an absolute physical constant by which to measure, to know that change is happening.

So I would say Premise 2 is incorrect; Changing states of matter is possible, even if there is nothing constant by which to measure the change against. (I can quite easily see change of two changing things relative to each other).

It quickly gets into problems with relativity and time, of which I don’t have answers. For example, clocks tick faster in an airplane flying at 40,000 feet than they do on the ground (the Hafele–Keating experiment).

But of course, if I was not there to observe it; would it be happening? lol. Sorry that was a re-word of the old saying “If a tree falls in a forest, and no-one was there to hear it, does it make a sound”; or “what is the sound of one hand clapping”; and all those nonsensical things people make up. :slight_smile: Sorry, I couldn’t resist; I have to put a bit of humor in when it gets too heavy. :slight_smile:

…on a more serious note; have you considered the RZIM core module? It’s really well worth doing for apologetics, and you get access to the videos to go back and review. In Lecture 2.1 ‘thinking well’ Tom Price talks about these: False Dilemma, Ad Hominem, Slippery Slope, Complex Question, Appeals to Authority, Hasty Generalisations, Begging the Question, Straw Man, Genetic Fallacy, Post Hoc fallacy

Here’s a good couple of quotes; one where Hume who said miracles are impossible, and CS Lewis who showed the circular logic.

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and un-alterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined… But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle.”1– David Hume

Premise 1: The laws of nature cannot be violated
Premise 2: Miracles are violations of the laws of nature
Conclusion: Therefore miracles do not occur
"All effects follow not with like certainty from their supposed causes.”2- David Hume“

"Now of course we must agree with Hume that, if there is absolutely “uniform experience” against miracles, if, in other words, they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.”3 C. S. Lewis

Hi again. As I see it, it is very much a matter of precision. To what degree can we measure things accurately? Here I see that we actually know pretty much nothing for certain down to the specifics. My point being, later in the argument you see where I introduce an immaterial, all powerful intelligence that explains that THIS being is the constant that would measure all other things moving. Since we move and other things move, we don’t get to know for certain the position of things. For example, there is the Chaos theory that states if you have one thing measured against another then you can predict things, but the moment you introduce a third thing is when you start to have all sorts of problems predicting things. It is that science will never get to the “bottom” of things - that no matter how close we get we will never “arrive”. That’s the sort of principle I am attacking that science can answer everything because no, it can’t, especially when it comes to the supernatural and spiritual world. Given this, it is assumed by me that miracles or at least things that cannot be explained is true and that practically speaking, these things would be considered miracles.

As far as “why” we need an unmoved mover, we consider the process of science that TRIES to remain a constant but the only constant really is God, so science is then necessarily going to fail at certain things/levels.

Again thanks for your continued interest in this.

As far as the basic apologist course for RZIM, I am looking at different options. I have prayed about it and the answer I got was whatever opened up that I should take would be paid for by someone else. This is just as I feel God has communicated to me. There is also Fire School of Ministry run by Dr. Michael Brown of the Brownsville Revival. Both options are great and I would gladly do both, but since I am on SSI I don’t really have much money to spend on these types of things. I would love to, but unless I get some really good discount or someone else pays for it for me, those are the conditions I am patiently waiting for. And it’s not like I am asking people for money to pay for my course. I find if God wants me to do it, He will provide the money for it and I am perfectly patient to wait on God’s timing and not mine.


1 Like

I have changed the argument slightly. The conclusion is the same, but I changed some of the arguements to be more clear. Here it is:

Logical Argument for Miracles

Premise 1: All states of matter change over time

Premise 2: Fixed states of matter don’t exist

Premise 3: Changing states of matter can only be measured if there is a constant universal invariant absolute that we can measure

Argument 1: Matter changes over time continuously

Argument 2: Either all matter always existed or all matter began to exist

Argument 3: Matter began to exist at a specific point in time

Argument 4: The first cause of all matter must be based on a universal invariant absolute

Argument 5: The assumption of universal invariant absolutes assumes complete control over all matter for all time

Argument 6: There are at least 3 universal invariant absolutes dictating the universe at all times

Argument 7: The first cause of all matter must have all power over all matter at all times

Argument 8: There must be an intelligence behind the cause of all matter for matter to continue to function without error and this intelligence must have all knowledge of all matter for all times

Argument 9: The intelligence of all power over all matter for all times must be all present with all matter for all times

Argument 10: An all-powerful, all present, all knowing intelligence of all matter is behind all matter

Argument 11: An all powerful, all present, all knowing intelligence over all matter for all times is effectively God

Argument 12: God has all power, has all knowledge, and is all present over all matter for all times

Argument 13: Matter cannot measure itself completely due to there being at least 3 things dictating the universe at all times because of the chaos theory

Argument 14: If humans are made of matter then they cannot fully measure matter

Argument 15: God changes matter humans cannot measure

Argument 16: God effectively does miracles because He does things we cannot understand

Prayer answered as the short course is more than 80% off right now. It seems God had in mind for me to take an RZIM course and for only $10, it’s less money then I spent on the two lexicon modules a few weeks ago. God is good. Hallelujah. Thank you Jesus for answering my pray so quickly.