Atheism vs. Theism

Rebuttals will be in the next round. Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG)[1]TAG argues that God exists due to the impossibility of the contrary. Without God, it is impossible to know anything. The Presuppositional Conflict of WorldviewsThe existence of God is not proven in the same way you might prove the existence of other things. All evidential approaches start from a position of neutrality and then "follow the evidence" to its proper conclusion. The problem is that there is no neutrality. We all have assumptions about reality. Infinite regression makes this apparent. [2] To convince someone of a truth claim, we use other truth claims, which themselves have to be justified, and so on. As finite beings we cannot justify every proposition forever. The point at which we stop the regression is the point we commit ourselves to some kind of truth we consider to be self-evident: a presupposition. The sum total of our presuppositions is called our worldview, which becomes the basis by which we interpret the whole of reality. Worldviews are the lens through which all evidence is interpreted, and it does so with our without our permission. It determines what can or cannot be known. It establishes our basis for ethics and values. It even informs our scientific endeavors. We all have worldviews; we all operate on assumptions about reality. It is inevitable. For the sake of discussion, I will be focusing on two antithetical worldviews which I will heretofore refer to as the atheistic worldview and the Christian worldview. In the event I use the term atheism, know that I am referring to the worldview that carries generally naturalistic presuppositions: e. g. the cosmos is all there is. I realize my opponent defined atheism as a disbelief in a supreme being, but such belief is grounded (as evidenced thus far) in a worldview that is predisposed to that belief. It is simply more convenient to refer to each worldview in a shorthand that is easily discernable. That being said, I recognize that my opponent has not yet had an opportunity or forethought to state his particular worldview. I will defer to general naturalism for the interim, granting him latitude to offer any other competing worldview he deems appropriate. TAG argues that atheism is an invalid worldview by failing to satisfy the three criteria that determine if a worldview is logically coherent: The worldview accounts for the necessary preconditions of human experience. The accounts do not contradict the worldview's presuppositions. The accounts are not abandoned when the worldview is lived out. My opponent has already assumed the following in this debate: the law-like nature of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral duties, and freedom of thought. Thus far he has taken it for granted that these tools are reliable for rational discourse, but he can no longer take them for granted because I am now challenging him to provide an account for these things from within the atheistic worldview without breaking any three of the aforementioned criteria. If he cannot account for these things within an atheistic worldview, then he cannot reasonably claim that atheism is true. It would be the very height of absurdity to defend a worldview that cannot account for the very things needed to prove it. Laws of LogicSo what gives logic its law-like nature? First, a logical law does not need to be experienced in order to be true. We don't have to test the laws of logic in every conceivable time and place in the universe in order to accept their universality. Second, logical laws are abstract, not to be found as objects in nature. Third, logical laws aren't subject to change or revision. Atheism cannot provide the necessary preconditions for the laws of logic, namely their universality, invariance, and immaterial nature without violating one of the criteria. To say the laws of logic are conventional, sociological, or material is to render them philosophically contingent, which is to say that the Law of Non-Contradiction, for example, could conceivably be untrue in some time, place, or world. But if logic can be untrue in some world, then my opponent can never truly validate anything logically, including his current thesis. In truth, my opponent expects me to adhere to logic, and in so doing he treats logical laws as abstract absolutes. This violates Criterion 3, for he will be abandoning atheistic presuppositions in the process. Atheists who account for logic as conventional will behave to the contrary. If atheists do accept logic as abstract and absolute, then they contradict the fundamental presupposition of atheism: the cosmos is all there is, ever was, or ever will be. The cosmos is neither abstract nor absolute, so it alone cannot account for logic. Thus, we have an internal conflict within the worldview, and atheism does not meet Criterion 2. God is immutable, immaterial, and universal, so he accounts for the preconditions of logic without contradicting Christian presuppositions. As a result, Christians can behave like logic is abstract and absolute without abandoning our presuppositions. Uniformity of NatureThe necessary precondition for science is the uniformity in nature. On what basis does the atheist expect the future to behave like the past? 18th century philosopher David Hume argued that using past probabilities to answer the question involves circular reasoning since it would involve using the principle of induction to prove the principle of induction. [3] When it comes to the uniformity of nature, atheism fails on Criterion 1; they simply have no account, though that won't stop them from assuming it is uniform. My opponent references scientific knowledge in his opening arguments, which I will address during the rebuttal rounds. Indeed, he goes so far as to generalize all Christians as unscientific and therefore untrustworthy in their claims. He clearly revers scientific knowledge, but he may not realize that every effort he makes to prove atheism undermines the very thing he uses to make his case. Evolution can only be said to be fact if indeed nature is uniform, but there is no rational case to be made within atheism that nature is in fact uniform. Any attempt will be circular reasoning, which amounts to asking the readers to accept his scientific evidence without basis. The Christian worldview, on the other hand, has no problem accounting for the uniformity of nature. Christianity presupposes that a perfectly unchanging God created and now governs the cosmos, so we can be confident that the future will behave like the past. Moral AbsolutesThe most common objections to Christianity involve an appeal to morality: the problem of evil and suffering, the problem of eternal punishment, the problem of unbelief, and so on. All of these arguments criticize Christianity on the basis that it is an immoral philosophy. Indeed, my opponent says quite directly that theism is corrupt. Such arguments rely on morality being objective, but once again, atheism cannot account for abstract absolutes. Atheists will say morality is a social convention or a product of evolution, but either response is to render morality arbitrary. Atheists behave as though there are real moral absolutes when they engage in these kinds of arguments, but they cannot account for them, so again, atheism fails to meet Criterion 3. In the Christian worldview, God is good and is the standard of goodness. He is unchanging and immaterial, so we have the necessary preconditions for abstract and absolute morality. Furthermore, when we behave as though morality is objective, we are operating wholly within our presuppositions. Freedom in Thinking and ThoughtIn the atheistic worldview, there is no higher order; everything is governed by the laws of physics. If my opponent is right about his position in this debate, then he has no reason to believe he is right. All thinking is nothing more than electrochemical processes in the brain which are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. Our thinking is therefore determined by the factors of the physical world around us. There is no real freedom to evaluate the evidence and "change our mind. " Any such change of mind was already predetermined by the laws of nature. We are both predisposed to saying what we believe and the act of entering into debate is irrational and futile. The very act of debating violates criterion 3. To presume that the mind is free to choose is to presume that our minds somehow transcend the laws of nature. The Christian worldview purports that we are more than physical in nature. The mind, being independent from the body, is free to choose. Christianity makes intelligible the very act of academic discourse. ConclusionAtheism is not merely problematic, it is utterly incoherent. It is a non-starter when it comes to accounting for the very things it uses in its own defense. Since atheism is impossible, the only alternative is theism. I have chosen Christian theism as my worldview, but what matters is this: if atheism is false, then theism in general is true and the God's existence is affirmed. Bear in mind, TAG argues that only the Christian worldview can account for logic laws, the uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, and free rational thinking. If my opponent does not provide an account of these things within an atheistic worldview, then TAG stands unrefuted. If he claims that all these things are self-evident, then he is question begging and TAG stands unrefuted. I look for to the next round of rebuttals. Thank you. Sources . http://www.butler-harris.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...