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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Atheist 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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Atheist 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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Atheist ...from the armchair it is obvious there is no certainty, everything is a matter of probability. |
Is this certain, or only probable?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Atheist ...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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Athest 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...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Atheist 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...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Atheist 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