# Debating Atheist Double Major...



## Craig (Feb 16, 2008)

An atheist asked me to "debate" him...I took him up on the offer.

Perhaps I should be more cautious...he is a double major in philosophy and physics...my background is NOT anything like that.

Anyone who likes apologetics, especially from the presup method, please feel free to keep an eye on what you can and give me advice...just looking over what we've discussed already, I'm seeing major weaknesses in his arguments that I missed.

The discussion is at my blog ANTIPELAGIAN.


----------



## Zenas (Feb 16, 2008)

One big gap in the atheist argument is.... causality.


----------



## Craig (Feb 16, 2008)

Andrew,
are you really going to let one minutia they can't explain keep you from believing their gospel?


----------



## Brian Bosse (Feb 16, 2008)

Hello Craig,

First off, there is nothing impressive with philosophy/physics double majors. This is not to denegrate philosophy or physics. I love both. (I majored in math and minored in physics). When speaking of ultimate grounds, all atheists have no foundation - no matter how sophisticated they are. Just be pateint and you will be able to tease this out. 



Atheist said:


> Science doesn't need certainty, it is perfectly aware of the problem of induction. We place confidence in our empirical expectations because they can render predictions. Your bible cannot, it said the earth was flat, which seems pretty stupid for god in his omniscience to say. Uniformity, like existence are not necessary aspects of the universe, On a Quantum level the universe is not uniform, it is completely random and non-intuitive, but we can understand it with math....



He says he is aware of the problem of induction, but he has confidence in empirical expectations because they can render predictions. What he really means by this is that he is confident that empirical expectations render true predictions. (So what, if they render false predications?) What is the foundation for this confidence our atheist has? Is it because past empirical observations rendered true predictions, and as such they will continue to do so in the future? If so, then he is assuming induction, which he acknowledges is problematic.

When your friend says that "on a quatum level the universe is not uniform" what he is saying is that scientists cannot explain certian observations. Things appear to be chaotic, random, etc... This is more about scientific epistemic inablilty rather than the nature of the universe. How absurd and arrogant it is to think that if I cannot understand why particles are acting or not acting in a certain way, then it must be that nature is not uniform. Also, it undermines all of human experience to even posit that the universe is not uniform. If he claims that "at the quantum level the universe is not uniform" but wants to say that in our everyday experience that it is, then he must explain how uniformity comes from a foundation of non-uniformity. Again, the conclusion that nature is not uniform based on observations that do not appear uniform is a huge irrational leap. 



Atheist said:


> For us to question uniformity the universe must be uniform, it proves nothing, it is merely a brute fact.



First off, there are no brute facts. Shame on a philosophy major not to understand this. All facts are interpreted. Secondly, when speaking about absolute foundations the atheist needs to be able to account for the induction he assumes. If he cannot account for it, then he is saying that his commitment to it is not epistemically justified.



Atheist said:


> ...from the armchair it is obvious there is no certainty, everything is a matter of probability.



Is this certain, or only probable? 



Atheist said:


> ...the problem of induction is something that by definition we can never get rid of.



He cannot get rid of it. The Christian does not have the same problem. The Christian Worldview can account for induction.



Athest said:


> My point is simply that god is a non-answer...



It is hard to know what he means by this. If he means that to answer God only pushes the problem one step back, then no one has answers. For example, to posit evolution as an answer to the diversity of life would become a non-answer because Scientists cannot explain how everything works within evolution. In fact, they cannot even all agree on the same theory. In the end, none of them can account for the universe, how life comes from non-life etc...So, to claim that my positing God as the grounds for induction is not allowed would undermine his positing evolution as the answer to the verity of life we see. By the way, unless one accepts an infinite regress, which historically has been considered inadequate in terms of justification, then whatever ultimate foundation you present cannot have an accounting in the sense of there being something before it. It must stop somewhere. The key question then becomes when you take a person's "stopping point" does it provide an adequate foundation and is it the sort of thing that is properly called a "sopping point"? What the Christian argues is that his worldview which assumes God can makes sense of the world. He also points out that the atheist, who ultimately assumes no creator, cannot account for the simplest of human experience like morals, induction, etc...



Atheist said:


> If that is the case (it all boils down to presuppositions) then we cannot know truth, if we cannot know truth then your answer has the same infinitesimally small chance of being right as mine.



If everything does boil down to presuppositions, then we can examine if our presuppositions are consistent and how well they comport with human experience. Those worldviews whose presuppositions are inconsistent are said to be irrational. Those worldviews who presuppositions cannot account for human experience are deficient. This provides a rational basis to judge between worldviews. 

By the way, what is truth in an atheist worldview? If he says it is the way things really are, then who decides what is real and what is not? If he says science, then what is it about science that gives it such an esteemed position? If he says because science has enabled us to make accurate predictions, then who judges what to be an "accurate" versus an "inaccurate" prediction? If the atheist answers science, then the atheist has two problems. (1) He is assuming induction when he speaks of past accurate prediction providing a foundation for future truth. (2) He is using science as the truth giver as support for why science gives truth. Both of these are question begging.

There is a lot more, but I will speak to just more thing. He says this...



Atheist said:


> Testing the excluded middle with symbolic logic: (A v B v C)A v C)



He followed this up with a bunch of gibberish that looked like he was trying to use truth tables. Well, it was non-sense. The law of excluded middle simply says, "Every proposition is either true or not true." Symbolically, this can be stated as follows: (A v ¬A). This law is not proved, but rather is assumed. However, it's derivation can be stated as follows...

*1.* [-]Show[/-] (A v ¬A) 
*2.* Assume ¬(A v ¬A)​We are assuming the opposite of what we are trying to show. If we can do this and derive a contradiction, then we have shown what we set out to show. This form of derivation is commonly called Indirect Derivation. 
*3.*[-]Show[/-] A → (A v ¬A)​*4.* Assume A​*5.* (A v ¬A) [Addition]​*6.* ¬A [Modus Tollens - 2, 3]​*7.*[-]Show[/-] ¬A → (A v ¬A)​*8.* Assume ¬A​*9.* (¬A v A) [Addition]​*10.* (A v ¬A) [Modus Ponens - 6, 7]​*11.* ¬¬(A v ¬A) [Double Negation - 10]​
This constitutes a derivation of the law of excluded middle because by assuming ¬(A v ¬A) I was able to derive its contradiction ¬¬(A v ¬A). The problem with this argument is that the logical laws I used such as Addition assume the law of excluded middle. Again, the law of excluded middle is foundational. It is assumed and by its assumption you can prove other things. If your atheist friend wants to deny it, then he may. But my guess is that he really does not live this way, and his doing so is arbitrary rather than empirically derived. 

Now, your atheist friend seemed to be saying that the law of excluded middle is something like this: (A v B v C) → (A v C). This is absurd. I think he is confusing exlcuded middle with the transitive property of mathematics which says, if A=B and B=C, then A=C. By the way, it is not the case that (A v B v C) → (A v C). For example, it is a true proposition that "Either my name is Tom, or my name is Brian or my name is Bob". However, it is not true that "Either my name is Tom or my name is Bob." 

I hope this has been a little helpful.

Brian


----------



## Craig (Feb 16, 2008)

It was all very helpful, Brian...I'm scratching my head about this:


> He followed this up with a bunch of gibberish that looked like he was trying to use truth tables. Well, it was non-sense. The law of excluded middle simply says, "Every proposition is either true or not true." Symbolically, this can be stated as follows: (A v ¬A). This law is not proved, but rather is assumed. However, it's derivation can be stated as follows...
> 
> 1. Show (A v ¬A)
> 2. Assume ¬(A v ¬A)
> ...



I have NO clue about any of those formulas...are you saying his formula only allowed for one of two answers, not both...except he cannot demonstrate either of the options are viable? For instance, you saying "Either my name is Tom or my name is Bob" but in reality it is "Brian"? So he can only demonstrate an either/or, but can't ensure an accurate answer?


----------



## Brian Bosse (Feb 16, 2008)

Hello Craig,

I am sorry for the confusion. The atheist stated that he was "testing the excluded middle with symbolic logic." He concluded that his test showed that it was invalid. What he really showed was that he did not understand the law of excluded middle or symbolic logic. 

His formula was (A v B v C)A v C). I am not sure what ':' means, but it seems as if he was using it in the sense of implication '→'. The 'v' means "or" and the '→' means "If..., then...". If this is what he means (and I think this is what he meant), then he is saying that the law of excluded middle is...

If A or B or C, then A or C. 

This is wrong. The law of excluded middle looks like this: (A v ¬A) where '¬' means not. In other words...

Either A or not-A.

What your friend "proved" was that "A or B or C" does not imply "A or C". The reason for this is that "A or B or C" is true if B is true and A and C are false. However, in this situation "A or C" is false. Therefore "A or B or C" does not imply "A or C". This is what your friend meant when he said this...



> FTF T T F*...The line marked with a * shows that it is invalid.



Notice, the first 'F' corresponds to A being false. The first 'T' corresponds to B being true. The second 'F' corresponds to C being false, and the last 'F' correponds to "A or C" being false. He says this shows "it" is invalid. Well, what is this "it"? He said it was the law of excluded middle. Well, it was not. "It" was simply the statement: (A v B v C) → (A v C), which is false.

So, I am really not sure what your friend was saying, but he has some misunderstandings regarding logic. I probably should not have commented on this, but I did because logic is sort of a hobby of mine. 

Brian


----------



## Zenas (Feb 16, 2008)

Craig said:


> Andrew,
> are you really going to let one minutia they can't explain keep you from believing their gospel?



Well, I guess I could take it on faith! I can have faith in the illogical can't I? Then I can mock Christians for being illogical because they don't accept macro-evolution!

Your friend's problem is the problem all of us share; total depravity manifested in man-centered pride. As long as man is king in his eyes, he will believe whatever illogicality will allow him to maintain that. Atheist argumentation is often the most unimpressive. On it's face, it will look sophisticated and intelligent, but when actually analyzed, it's clear they didn't put a whole lot of thought into it, or they were intentionally trying to be misleading or misrepresentative of a position.

Take for instance his assertion that the world is flat in the Bible. I'd like for him to quote the passage back to me where that is said. I can help him out with that before he wastes his time: It doesn't say that. Either he is that ignorant of some of the most fundamental understandings about Scripture, or he knows what he said was wrong, but he was using it as a straw-man that he could knock down to make himself feel better.

No matter how sophisticated they seem, they are emotionally driven, often angry, and extremely prideful. Mock their ignorance and you win the day automatically because they won't be able to hold up argumentation because the reason for their contention is gone, i.e. to support their ego.

The fact that he is a double-major is a non-issue. Some of the most intelligent people on Earth have made the dumbest mistakes when it comes to theism. They degrade into subjectivism and then start reasoning from there, i.e. J.L. Mackie and the problem of evil. Force him into the realm of objectivity and he's hosed. He should be already, because he's relying on logic. Logic is on our side, not his.

Edit: Brian is going to provoke me into breaking open my logic textbook again. I refused to sell it or throw it away. I still have it on my desk and I plan on keeping it to teach my kids.


----------



## Craig (Feb 16, 2008)

Brian,
I think I'm understanding...my problem is I have NEVER studied logic. What I know comes from listening to Bahnsen, reading Bahnsen, reading Van Til and comprehending maybe 35% of what Van Til says 

I ordered Copi's intro to logic a few days ago...I'm sure I won't understand a lick of those formulas for a good...oh, I dunno, someday if I can get the hamster back in his wheel.


----------



## Craig (Feb 17, 2008)

He has responded


----------

