Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,820
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
If an atheist agrees that their foundation for knowledge is inductive, then they must live consistently with that implication in order to have a self consistent foundation for knowledge. But if the foundation of knowledge is no more than induction, then it entails that one can not be ultimately certain about anything. If the atheists say that their foundation for knowledge is inductive, but yet they make absolute claims, then the atheist is contradicting their own epistemology. This is because the atheist, who uses inductive reasoning as their foundation for knowledge, has limited themselves to what they believe is probable, but they can’t make absolute claims due to the limitations of inductive reasoning.<ref>[http://answersforhope.org/portfolio_item/the-epistemological-argument-against-atheism/ The Epistemological Argument against Atheism]</ref>}}
If an atheist agrees that their foundation for knowledge is inductive, then they must live consistently with that implication in order to have a self consistent foundation for knowledge. But if the foundation of knowledge is no more than induction, then it entails that one can not be ultimately certain about anything. If the atheists say that their foundation for knowledge is inductive, but yet they make absolute claims, then the atheist is contradicting their own epistemology. This is because the atheist, who uses inductive reasoning as their foundation for knowledge, has limited themselves to what they believe is probable, but they can’t make absolute claims due to the limitations of inductive reasoning.<ref>[http://answersforhope.org/portfolio_item/the-epistemological-argument-against-atheism/ The Epistemological Argument against Atheism]</ref>}}
Peterson also wrote:
{{Cquote|Since there is no omniscient being given the truth of atheism, all knowledge (the possession of the truth) must be acquired inductively. Unfortunately for our dear atheists, induction cannot be an account for knowledge. There are several reasons for this:
1. In induction, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
2. Since the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed, all conclusions that are reached through induction are probabilistic.
3. You cannot validly reason to a universal truth from a particular truth by using induction.
4. There is no rule in logic that allows for the validity of inductive inferences.
The Consequences of Being Stuck with Induction
Since induction only draws conclusions on the basis of probability, there is always a possibility of the conclusion being false. Because there is no way to demonstrate the truth of the conclusion by using induction, atheists are stuck in skepticism. They say they try to evaluate the claims on the basis of evidence, but evidence is acquired inductively. Just because they think they see evidence for a claim doesn’t make the claim in question true. Thus, there is no interpretative framework for atheists that allow them to discern true propositions from false ones. Thus, atheists are stuck in epistemological skepticism.<ref>[https://apologeticsmadesimple.com/2018/01/30/epistemological-argument-atheism/ The Epistemological Argument against Atheism]</ref>}}
[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as "the man [[atheism|atheists]] fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.<ref>[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref>]]
[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as "the man [[atheism|atheists]] fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.<ref>[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref>]]
[[Greg Bahnsen]] wrote about [[atheism and presuppositional apologetics]]:
[[Greg Bahnsen]] wrote about [[atheism and presuppositional apologetics]]: