Tweet
Have you ever felt rising panic when debating an atheist? Have you ever thought, “Wow, what he’s saying really makes sense”? There’s a reason for this. Many atheists have been taught how to construct a valid argument. But a valid argument is not always a sound argument.
An argument consists of at least two premises and a conclusion, for example:
The premises and conclusion must be declarative sentences that can either be asserted (said to be true) or denied (said to be false). A valid argument is one in which the conclusion is true if the premises are true. In other words, a valid argument can be constructed on false premises, which is what atheists have been doing, for example:
This is a valid argument, but it is unsound. We Christians deny the premises. There is evidence of Noah’s Flood. Moses wrote about it 1,000 years after the event. So we might construct the following valid argument to rebut the atheist:
The premises are true; the conclusion is true. Checkmate, atheist! Now let’s look at how the atheist might argue against the existence of God.
The second premise in this argument is invalid, as it is a logical fallacy. The other premises can be denied. Here is how the Christian might respond:
Jesus wins again! If the omniscient (1 Jn 3:20), omnipotent (Rev 19:6), omnipresent (Ps 139:7-12) God of the Bible existed and was still active in the world (Heb 1:3), of course there would be evidence! But I bet I know exactly how the atheist would feebly respond to our argument.
This is circular reasoning, an invalid, fallacious argument. We’ve got the atheist on the ropes.
The most important thing to take away from all this is that anyone can construct a valid argument. It doesn’t mean they’re right. It’s also possible to draw the right conclusion from false premises (see also non sequitur; fallacist’s fallacy). We Christians have been doing it for millennia.
An argument consists of at least two premises and a conclusion, for example:
God hates sinners; therefore Jesus hates sinners.
God hates sinners (premise)
Jesus is God (implied premise)
Jesus hates sinners (conclusion)
God hates sinners (premise)
Jesus is God (implied premise)
Jesus hates sinners (conclusion)
The premises and conclusion must be declarative sentences that can either be asserted (said to be true) or denied (said to be false). A valid argument is one in which the conclusion is true if the premises are true. In other words, a valid argument can be constructed on false premises, which is what atheists have been doing, for example:
There is no evidence that a global flood ever occurred.
If a global flood occurred, we would expect to see evidence of it.
Therefore Noah’s Flood never happened.
If a global flood occurred, we would expect to see evidence of it.
Therefore Noah’s Flood never happened.
This is a valid argument, but it is unsound. We Christians deny the premises. There is evidence of Noah’s Flood. Moses wrote about it 1,000 years after the event. So we might construct the following valid argument to rebut the atheist:
The Bible says there was a global flood (Genesis 7:1-8:22).
The Bible is God’s Word (2 Tim 3:16).
God’s Word is true (Jn 17:17).
Therefore Noah’s Flood happened.
The Bible is God’s Word (2 Tim 3:16).
God’s Word is true (Jn 17:17).
Therefore Noah’s Flood happened.
The premises are true; the conclusion is true. Checkmate, atheist! Now let’s look at how the atheist might argue against the existence of God.
There is no evidence that a god exists.
If there was evidence for the existence of a god, I would know about it.
If a god existed, we would expect to see evidence
Therefore no god exists.
If there was evidence for the existence of a god, I would know about it.
If a god existed, we would expect to see evidence
Therefore no god exists.
The second premise in this argument is invalid, as it is a logical fallacy. The other premises can be denied. Here is how the Christian might respond:
The Bible says creation is sufficient evidence of God’s existence (Rom 1:18-20).
The Bible is true (Jn 17:17).
Therefore God exists.
The Bible is true (Jn 17:17).
Therefore God exists.
Jesus wins again! If the omniscient (1 Jn 3:20), omnipotent (Rev 19:6), omnipresent (Ps 139:7-12) God of the Bible existed and was still active in the world (Heb 1:3), of course there would be evidence! But I bet I know exactly how the atheist would feebly respond to our argument.
God doesn’t exist; therefore there can’t be any evidence of His existence.
This is circular reasoning, an invalid, fallacious argument. We’ve got the atheist on the ropes.
The most important thing to take away from all this is that anyone can construct a valid argument. It doesn’t mean they’re right. It’s also possible to draw the right conclusion from false premises (see also non sequitur; fallacist’s fallacy). We Christians have been doing it for millennia.
The dead body disappears after a few seconds, and the cliff-people go back to minding their own business. All of a sudden, a new manservant appears, but unlike the first manservant, this second man is talking with the cliff-people, and it seems as if he's trying to................................................ ..........................................Aaarghh! Darn it, I forgot to take my memory pill today! Oh well, I guess I'll just have to try to remember the rest of the vision tomorrow. Stay tuned.
The cheat HAS to be clever.
Comment