Atheist Contradictions – Bad Logic

Another point Dr. Plantinga made at the EPS Conference I attended regarded Richard Dawkins notion that the ‘the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design’. As Dr. Plantinga states it the argument goes as follows:

1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being logically possible that all life came about by way of unguided Darwinian processes:

Therefore,

2. All of life came to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.

Interestingly atheists apply the same logic to any number of aspects of the universe and reality. As “We know of no irrefutable objections to it being logically possible that the universe arose uncaused, therefore…” and “We know of no irrefutable objections to its being logically possible that human consciousness and self-awareness came about through natural processes, therefore…” and so and so forth.

To understand how fallacious this logic is, one need only consider it in light of the possible occurrence of other unlikely entities, like unicorns:

“We know of no irrefutable objections to its being logically possible that unicorns exist,

Therefore

Unicorns exist.”

Of course atheists for the most part would deny that unicorns exist, even if they employ the logic that would justify a belief in unicorns. It s absurd to conclude that just because something is logically possible, it must therefore be the case. It is logically possible my wife would say yes when I asked her to marry me – but that fact in and of itself didn’t make us married. Yet it is also upon this basis that the New Atheists declare evolution, and science itself to be incompatible with a belief in God; in the end all they actually prove is that atheists are really bad logicians.

Advertisements

3 Responses to Atheist Contradictions – Bad Logic

  1. Gordon Smith says:

    One minor, but important correction:

    “We know of no irrefutable objections to its being logically possible that unicorns could exist,
    (there is no biological reason why a horse like creature could not develop a horn)

    Therefore

    Unicorns can exist.”

    Also, there is a falacy in your falacy:

    Science cannot irrefutably disprove the existence of God

    Therefore

    God exists.

  2. jackhudson says:

    One minor, but important correction:
    “We know of no irrefutable objections to its being logically possible that unicorns could exist,
    (there is no biological reason why a horse like creature could not develop a horn)
    Therefore
    Unicorns can exist.”

    I am not sure this is a ‘correction’ as it is a wholly different statement. It is in fact true that a unicorn could exist if a horse-like creature could develop a horn. But there is a vast difference between can and did.

    Also, there is a falacy in your falacy:
    Science cannot irrefutably disprove the existence of God
    Therefore
    God exists.

    I am not sure why that would be ‘my fallacy’ unless I made the argument (which to my knowledge I never have). It would indeed be a fallacy to argue that God does exist simply because science cannot disprove His existence.

  3. Gordon Smith says:

    I retract 2nd half of comment. You are right to point out you’ve never used this argument, and the fallacy remains valid whatever set of words you put in there. clearly not my finest moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: