The Laws of Logic Require God: A Response to Stranglewood
This is a presentation of my argument from my debate with the atheist who goes by the name Stranglewood. Stranglewood had been very active in the comments on our YouTube channel, and then when Alexx “Triple xXx” Medeiros and I hosted an all-comers debate stream on Monday, March 31, 2025, Stranglewood stepped up and joined the fray.
My point during the discussion was simple: the laws of logic require the triune God of Scripture. The atheist worldview has no justification for them. The Christian worldview does. That’s it.
Now, let’s walk through this together.
Logic Is Not Grounded in the Atheistic Worldview
Throughout our conversation, Stranglewood tried to offer a justification for logic without God. He said that logic can be justified because it works—that is, because it produces results. But as I pointed out, that answer assumes the very thing we’re discussing. You can’t say logic works unless you already assume logic. You have to presuppose logic in order to evaluate whether logic is working.
If you’re going to appeal to the utility of logic, how are you evaluating whether it is working or not? According to what standard? The only possible way to test its utility is by already assuming the basic laws of logic: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. So appealing to utility is circular.
This is what I kept coming back to: give me a metaphysical and epistemological justification for the laws of logic. Don’t assume them. Account for them.
Stranglewood never did.
Arbitrary Authority and Language Games
When I pressed him, he said logic is conventional. He compared it to a language game. He said it’s something we invented and that it doesn’t have authority over reality. But that falls apart for several reasons.
First, if logic is conventional, it isn’t authoritative. There is no reason anyone must adhere to it. It’s just a human invention. But then, why should I or anyone else follow it?
Second, if it’s conventional, it’s local. What happens when two conventions disagree? Whose logic wins?
Third, Stranglewood admitted that logic is propositional in nature—that is, it uses grammar. Then he argued that this means logic is therefore conventional. But that only follows if you assume that all grammar is man-made. And even if human grammar varies, that does not prove that the propositional truths we express through it are man-made.
Fourth, he admitted that logic must be coherent, that it must be non-contradictory, and that it must not be falsified. But those are all metaphysical claims. He says logic doesn’t reflect reality, and then turns around and says it describes reality. Which is it?
Logic Has Definite Attributes
So I asked him: what are the attributes of logic? He dodged. Then he tried to say it doesn’t matter. But let’s be honest: we both know that logic is not made of matter, it doesn’t change, and it applies everywhere. That means it is:
Immaterial
Universal
Invariant
Authoritative
Those are the attributes of logic. And those attributes are not compatible with the materialist, atheist worldview. Matter changes. Energy changes. But logic does not. It is what it is, everywhere, always.
So I asked him directly: is logic made of matter and energy? He said that logic is transmitted by matter and energy. But that’s not the question. If logic is transmitted by matter and energy, it can still exist apart from that transmission. Which means it’s not material. It’s immaterial.
And here’s the problem: if you think logic is made of changing particles, then logic itself would change. But logic doesn’t change. It is unchanging, and so it cannot be reduced to matter and energy.
The Christian Worldview Grounds Logic
This is where I laid out the positive case. In the Christian worldview, we believe in the triune God of Scripture. God is self-existent (Exodus 3:14), unchanging (Malachi 3:6), and eternal (Psalm 90:2). His thoughts are consistent, orderly, and rational (Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 14:33).
Therefore, the laws of logic are a reflection of the mind of God. They are immaterial because God is spirit (John 4:24). They are universal because God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10). They are invariant because God does not change. And they are authoritative because God is the ultimate authority (Isaiah 45:23).
So within the Christian worldview, logic is grounded in the nature of God. That’s why I can account for it. That’s why it is authoritative. That’s why we are all required to adhere to it.
What Happens Without God?
I presented six problems with saying logic is a mere convention:
A world without logic is incoherent. If logic is just a convention, then a world where A equals not-A is possible. But that’s nonsense.
Conventional logic is false. If logic doesn’t reflect reality, then it’s not true.
Conventional logic is toothless. If it isn’t authoritative, then it’s just a suggestion. No one has to follow it.
Using logic proves you believe it’s real. You want to be understood. You want to be rational. That assumes the laws of logic are true, not just made up.
Logic is discovered, not invented. We didn’t make it up. We uncover it.
Logic exists even when humans don’t. If all humans disappeared, would it suddenly be true that a thing could be both itself and not itself? Of course not.
That’s why atheism fails. It can’t give a metaphysical grounding for logic. And as I said to Stranglewood, you’ve been avoiding this question the entire time. There is no explanation in your system for why the laws of logic have the properties they do.
Appeal to Authority
Then it came down to authority. I pointed out that Stranglewood kept appealing to logicians, to philosophers, to the consensus in academia. But that is an appeal to authority. And yet he criticized me for appealing to Scripture.
So what’s the difference?
The difference is, my authority is God. Your authority is man. And God is not like man (Numbers 23:19).
You want to say, “My worldview can explain logic.” But you can’t. You have to borrow from mine to even have this conversation.
You want to say, “I don’t have to believe in God to use logic.” That’s true. But it doesn’t matter what you believe. What matters is what is real. And the reality is that your use of logic presupposes God, even if you deny Him.
As Romans 1:21 says, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking."
The Need for Repentance
I said it plainly, and I’ll say it again here: your problem is not intellectual. It’s moral. You need to repent.
We are all wicked sinners. And Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). He died on the cross, and He rose again. He calls you to repent and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15).
You already know God. And when you use logic, you prove it. But you suppress that knowledge (Romans 1:18).
Turn to Christ. He is the truth (John 14:6). And He offers forgiveness for all who call on Him (Romans 10:13).
Watch a clip of my debate with Stranglewood here.
Pastors: Want your church equipped with this kind of biblical apologetics? Book me for a Defend Your Faith Weekend and let’s train your people to stand firm. Learn more here.
Christian men, it’s time to stop coasting and start contending.
You were made to lead your family, your church, and your community with boldness and clarity—rooted in the truth of God’s Word. The Hammer & Anvil Society is where men like you are forged into worldview leaders.
If you’re ready to stop being shaped by the culture and start shaping it, join the Society. Get equipped. Get connected. Get sharp.