Abstract This paper defends the syllogism: P1: Nature universally obeys fundamental logic. P2: What universally constrains nature must be supernatural. C1: Therefore, fundamental logic is supernatural. The argument proceeds by demonstrating the inviolability and prescriptive force of logic in constraining reality, rejecting naturalistic, Platonistic, and multiverse-based explanations. Logic's transcendence points to a supernatural source, with theism providing the most coherent framework. A falsifiability criterion is proposed to ensure philosophical rigor. Introduction Rational inquiry across disciplines presupposes the existence and validity of fundamental logic. Without logic, coherence collapses, science dissolves, and epistemological frameworks disintegrate. Yet many contemporary worldviews either take logic for granted or mischaracterize its nature. “Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.” — C.S. Lewis, Miracles (1947) This paper examines the claim th...
#apologetics #christianity #worldview 1. The Scope of the Tool Is Narrow Methodological naturalism is the operating assumption of modern science: it limits investigation to natural causes. That’s fine when you're studying combustion engines or bacterial infections. But it’s not a philosophy of truth—it’s a restriction. MN says, “Even if supernatural causes exist, we will act as though they don’t.” That may help in a chemistry lab. It collapses entirely when asking where laws of logic, morality, or the universe itself come from. Using MN to study metaphysics is like using a metal detector to search for love—it simply can’t detect what it refuses to consider. 2. It Silently Smuggles in Metaphysics Naturalistic science pretends to be neutral. It’s not. It assumes that only material causes are valid. But that’s not a scientific conclusion—it’s a metaphysical stance. Ask: What test confirmed that only physical things exist? None. It’s a belief baked into the method, not a discove...