In 2013, I made an epistemological argument against atheism from modal logic. In this article, I will present this argument again, but it will be a more clear and concise presentation.
A Framework is Needed
In order to discern a true proposition from a false one, you must have some sort of methodology for making a distinction between a true belief and a false belief.
The Problem of Induction
Since there is no omniscient being given the truth of atheism, all knowledge (the possession of the truth) must be acquired inductively. 1 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.
The Epistemological Argument from Atheism
Given what has been discussed, I will construct a hypothetical syllogism.
1. If atheism is true (A), atheists can only begin with induction (B). 2
2. If atheists can only begin with induction (B), it is not possible for them to know anything to be true (C).
3. Therefore, if atheism is true (A), atheists cannot know anything to be true (C).
Footnotes:
1. In this article, ‘induction’ is defined as an argument or process of probabilistic inference.
Notes:
What do you mean by the word “use” in your argument? Atheists can use deductive logic fine, but I think you are using the word “use” in a specific way.
Justin,
Good question. When I say, ‘use,’ there is an element to the term that specifies the necessity of inference. I’ll add a foot note. Thanks!
EDIT: I was going to add a footnote, but it ended up being too complex. I change the language of the argument instead. Thanks again, Justin!