A consideration of what might lie beyond the grave is strictly outside the scope of science. But the consensus of scientific opinion today states that life upon the Earth has almost certainly evolved spontaneously, without the action of God; that our existence is probably limited to material substance; and that life therefore has no greater purpose. Our situation is indeed similar to Sarah’s, because we can be absolutely certain that one of these statements is a lie. Given the striking similarity, perhaps there is some way we might also utilise logic.

But before we consider this question, we must briefly look at what has become known as Fuzzy84 Logic. This is the branch of mathematics which deals with vague sets. The Fuzzy approach concedes that many of the problems encountered in everyday life just cannot be quantified in terms of black and white, right and wrong, yes and no, truth and lie; more often, the best available answer turns out to be maybe or probably. However, by using Fuzzy Logic, it is possible to quantify a problem in percentage terms to work mathematically with issues which defy absolute categorisation. The recognition of this principle has led to major advances in the field of artificial intelligence; permitting, as it does, computers to better mimic the thought processes of humans.

In traditional mathematical logic, variables must have absolute value in order for the power of mathematical reason to be successfully applied: in other words, the available answers must fall naturally into black and white categorisation. That is why Sarah’s problem can be solved via its application. With regard to the question of discernment of truth then, we should first establish whether or not the problem is suitable for the application of traditional logic.

Whereas the Biblical position claims to represent absolute truth, the scientific view can never offer more than reasonably certainty. It can be clearly seen that whereas the Biblical view is indeed quantified in absolute terms, the scientific view is not. With regard to the logic of mathematical reason, we can at least begin to apply this to the Bible; but scientific arguments, which are typified by vague or uncertain expressions, can only be properly analysed in fuzzy terms. Therefore, we may conclude that Biblical ‘truth’ may be fairly subjected to logical testing; but scientific ‘truth’, for which we must accept error as an integral part, is unsuitable material for the absolute test of strict logic.

Because we cannot be guaranteed to be told either the truth or a lie by our science, we cannot logically derive absolute information from this source: the Bible’s claims however, are indeed absolute. The almost staggering conclusion that must be reached this line of reasoning is that the Bible is our only method of progressing the matter through a logical analysis. It is interesting to note that St Paul, who was well versed in logic, often put forward logical arguments in his letters.

Of course, just because a claim to possession of truth is made by a particular party does not mean that party actually has the truth. In a logical analysis, we must deal with the party which claims to represent absolute truth because it is only possible to logically test absolute information labelled as ‘truth’ or ‘lie'. But it then becomes necessary to discern whether or not information thus obtained is true or false in order to continue to progress the problem logically. So far, so good; but unfortunately, we have reached the limit of the logical approach because at this point, according to both the Bible and mathematics, logic itself breaks down.