Unbelievers Can’t Answer This Simple Question

There are many ways to illustrate the futility of unbelieving philosophy but I think one of the coolest ways to do that is to pose a simple question. Unbelievers cannot provide a good answer to the simple question:


why do you believe gravity will apply 20 seconds from now?


In truth, this can be applied to any belief we have about the natural world. Any answer to such a question would in one way or another rely on past experience.


The argument is something like this:


I experienced the force of gravity every single day my life

I experienced the force of gravity on Monday

I experienced the force of gravity on Tuesday 

I experienced the force of gravity on Wednesday 

I experienced the force of gravity on Thursday 

Therefore, I'll experience the force of gravity on Friday. 


The obvious issue with this is that it is logically invalid. There's no contradiction involved in accepting the premises and denying the conclusion - the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Of course, one can point out that this isn't a problem since the argument is not deductive but rather inductive. And as such, the premises serve to increase the probability of the conclusion. So, the more the sample size, the higher the probability and confidence with which we can draw the conclusion, or so the argument goes. 


But the problem is even deeper than mere invalidity. But rather, since the particular experiences listed in the premises of the above argument are independent of one another, there's nothing to connect them together and also to connect them to the conclusion such that we can even say that the conclusion is probably true. This is the age-old Problem of Induction, and it concerns how we can rationally go from past experience to things which we have never experienced. 


There's no necessary connection between the premises of an inductive argument such that we can move beyond the present testimony of our senses to draw conclusions about  (with any degree of probability) unobserved instances.


Now, if we had an extra premise that informs us that future experiences will generally conform to past experiences then we can have support for expectations about the behavior of gravity on Friday. But another problem arises as to how such a premise can be rationally justified. No rational justification is forthcoming - at least from an atheistic standpoint. As such, atheists cannot justify their belief that gravity will apply even a second from now. They just arbitrarily and irrationally do so. 


The problem of induction can be brought up in light of the unbeliever’s rejection of the Christian worldview. The unbeliever has a problem of induction while the Christian does not. The Christian can justify his belief in the uniformity of nature from within his worldview since God created and controls every single event in the world. God directs and governs creation to exhibit order and regularity and he has revealed to us that he does so. So the Christian can believe the future will be like the past, that the sun will rise tomorrow, that gravity will apply 20 seconds from now, and a whole host of other things through induction. The atheist cannot even know the simplest fact through inductive reasoning.


This is one of many illustrations of the folly of unbelief. The problem of induction is a great way to demonstrate the transcendental necessity of Christianity. To learn more about it, I recommend grabbing a copy of The Folly of Unbelief where I take a closer look at it.


God bless!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th
Read more