I write to the one who believes in evolution, and who asserts
that evolution can be explained sufficiently without appealing to God – as if
that assertion holds any force.
Allow me to lay out this Atheistic argument:
Premise 1:
If you can sufficiently explain (x) without appealing to (y), then (y) is not necessary.
Premise 2:
If something (y) is not necessary for (x), then (y) does not exist.
Premise 3:
Evolution (x) is a given.
Premise 4:
I can sufficiently explain Evolution (x) without appealing to a God (y)
Premise 5:
Therefore, God (y) is not necessary.
Conclusion:
Therefore, God (y) does not exist.
Think about your television. A person can give an account of how that TV functions, and even how that TV was manufactured, without appealing to evolution – appealing to evolution is not necessary in order to explain how the TV works, and yet you still believe in evolution. But it would be silly for me to explain how the TV works and how someone made it, and then say to you, “Since I can explain the TV sufficiently, without any necessity of appealing to evolution, then evolution must be a false theory.” Perhaps the only thing more silly would be for me to expect my assertion to carry any force.
Allow me to lay out this Atheistic argument:
Premise 1:
If you can sufficiently explain (x) without appealing to (y), then (y) is not necessary.
Premise 2:
If something (y) is not necessary for (x), then (y) does not exist.
Premise 3:
Evolution (x) is a given.
Premise 4:
I can sufficiently explain Evolution (x) without appealing to a God (y)
Premise 5:
Therefore, God (y) is not necessary.
Conclusion:
Therefore, God (y) does not exist.
Think about your television. A person can give an account of how that TV functions, and even how that TV was manufactured, without appealing to evolution – appealing to evolution is not necessary in order to explain how the TV works, and yet you still believe in evolution. But it would be silly for me to explain how the TV works and how someone made it, and then say to you, “Since I can explain the TV sufficiently, without any necessity of appealing to evolution, then evolution must be a false theory.” Perhaps the only thing more silly would be for me to expect my assertion to carry any force.
It’s silly for you to assert, “Since I can explain evolution
sufficiently, without any necessity of appealing to a Creator, then a Creator
must not exist.” Perhaps the only thing
more silly would be for you to expect your assertion to carry any force.
Really the only point is this: That argument which asserts, "Appealing to God is not necessary for explaining how things evolve" is a bad argument - the argument has no force whatsoever. The argument doesn't give any reason to believe anything, pro or con, about the existence of a Creator.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this post, I attack Premise 2, and I attack the jump from Premise 5 to the Conclusion.
I say this Atheistic argument is unsound. The argument is valid, because if all the premises are true, then the Conclusion must be true (1). But at least one Premise is false.
There is no reason to accept the 2nd Premise, which says, "If something (y) is not necessary for (x), then (y) does not exist."
And there is certainly no reason to make the jump from Premise 5 to the Conclusion.
In the sequel (2) I will attack the argument in another way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Validity and Soundness
2. Explaining Evolution Without Appealing to a Creator God (Part 2)
In this post, I attack Premise 2, and I attack the jump from Premise 5 to the Conclusion.
I say this Atheistic argument is unsound. The argument is valid, because if all the premises are true, then the Conclusion must be true (1). But at least one Premise is false.
There is no reason to accept the 2nd Premise, which says, "If something (y) is not necessary for (x), then (y) does not exist."
And there is certainly no reason to make the jump from Premise 5 to the Conclusion.
In the sequel (2) I will attack the argument in another way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Validity and Soundness
2. Explaining Evolution Without Appealing to a Creator God (Part 2)
1 comment:
I conclude both posts with this:
Premise 2 is false.
Premise 4 is false.
The jump from Premise 5 to the conclusion is false because Premise 2 is false.
If you don't mean to make the jump from Premise 5 to the Conclusion, then you have saved me all the time, by admitting that your argument has no force.
Premise 2 is false, and Premise 4 is false (or at least Premise 2 is definitely false, and there is good reason to doubt Premise 4), therefore, there is no reason to accept the Conclusion.
If the conclusion were true, the truth of the conclusion would have absolutely nothing to do with this atheistic argument - because this atheistic argument, though valid, is nevertheless unsound.
If you have reasons for accepting Premise 2 and Premise 4, then by all means, post a comment.
Post a Comment