Atheist & Christian Argue After a Lecture

If the universe didn't have any of that, if I'm a cosmic accident, and the universe is going ultimately nowhere, do I have a basis to call anything future? Do I have a basis even to ask the question? Like, you know, for example, right now we're having a dialogue.

What are we assuming right now? We're assuming induction? We're assuming laws of laws?

To assume induction, you would have to actively say, this is going to be I mean, we don't necessarily know the future's going to be the same as the past.

You don't.

Nobody does.

Well, no, I would say Christians have a certain claim that we do know the future. Well, every position is a faith position. For example, your position just now when you say we don't know but we're pretty sure, that's a faith commitment.

But I would say it's blind faith. Whereas mine's a faith commitment to be sure, but it's a faith commitment that God has revealed himself in history. And so I have certain knowledge of God. So they assume, say, all their faith positions, but one is a blind faith commitment and one is a faith in evidence, in the testimony of the Old and Mid-Standard and in the authority of God.

The Universality of Logic and Induction

You also said laws of logic are universal.

Yeah.

And that is part of God.

Yeah.

And so we're told these laws of logic are the same everywhere.

Laws of logic are universal.

How do we know that? Other than God.

Well, I would say we have certainty that our thoughts are to be rational, consistent, that there is unchanging nature to laws of logic. We actually have certainty about that because God has revealed himself to us.

But I would say if we contrast it, I would say an unbelieving worldview, an atheistic worldview, we don't have a basis to depend upon them at all. So, for example, if you were to say to me just now, without God, just start without him.

Say we're not going to begin our thinking with him.

We're going to deny him.

You're going to say, well, Jeff, laws of logic aren't universal. And then I said to you, okay, so they are. And you said, no, no, no, they're not.

And I said, okay, so they are.

You see, I would be contradicting you right there, and you wouldn't be comfortable with it.

Why?

Because you would be dependent upon the universal nature of the law of logic.

But universal apply everywhere.

That's right.

Our experience only covers here. How can we say that it would be the same in other places?

So, you understand, we're talking about laws of logic. We're talking about, say, basic things like law of non-contradiction. So, are you saying the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply in Islam? You're saying we don't know what applies on Mars or Jupiter.

Well, again, the law of non-contradiction is something that is different than, say, a natural law like a physical constant. A law of non-contradiction is immaterial and that it is conceptual in nature.

Okay.

It's just that it's conceptual. It's all non-existent.

No, in the sense, well, if it doesn't exist, so it doesn't exist.

No.

So it does. So it does.

It doesn't.

We could have known this at that point.

We could know.

But we have to go and learn.

We wouldn't have to go and learn.

Okay.

So then we don't have to go and learn.

So we do.

Do you see what happens? If we don't assume the universal nature of laws of logic, and you want to deny them, then I would sit and contradict you the whole time, and I guarantee you in about 60 seconds, you'd probably get pretty frustrated.

But that doesn't get anywhere.

It doesn't.

Exactly right, because laws of logic are universal. It's the atmosphere we all live in. This is God's world, and so it's unavoidable. We can try to deny the laws of logic as universal and unchanging, but we can't live that way.

The Image of God, Science, and Moral Knowledge

So what about somebody who's never heard of this in Trinity? I mean, they could still know an apple isn't an orange.

You know what I mean?

They still have a basic knowledge.

Yeah, and I think it's important to point out that there's only so much you can do in 45 minutes. If we had two hours to go, I'd probably explain something really important, and that is that the Christian claim is not that atheists don't use laws of logic.

The Christian claim is not that atheists don't appeal to universal laws of arithmetic. The Christian claim is that apart from God, you can't justify any of those things. And so, for example, we say somebody in Papua New Guinea that's never heard of Jesus is still doing what?

Appealing to universal laws of logic, still appealing to the law of non-contradiction, and still telling their kids not to steal from others, those kind of things. We would say that's because they're made in the image of God, and it's inescapable.

But what we're saying is ultimately that without God, you would have no certainty for the knowledge claims they make, to the appeals to laws of logic, to the appeals to induction, the appeals to alphabetical alphabets.

You would have no certainty, is what we're saying.

Is that a problem?

Is what?

No certainty. A problem?

Yeah, I'd say philosophically speaking, it's a tremendous problem. It's a tremendous problem. So a Christian would want to have an objective basis to call something evil, or to say, for example, we can do science.

That's really important. The fact that we can even do science, we would want to have a reasoned response, a cogent answer as to how we can do science. We wouldn't want to say we want to live by just simple blind faith.

See what I'm saying? The Christian faith is a position that's rooted in a foundation of objectivity and certainty, whereas without God, you don't have any certainty that tomorrow is going to be like today.

You don't have any certainty that this action is truly not good, and this action is good. Just a perfect example is when I had Dan Barker on the radio show, and he was brought up to the issue of rape.

If I ask you, you would view it as rape is wrong, we're all going to say, well, rape is wrong. Yes, right? So here, Dan Barker is saying, well, rape is wrong, we shouldn't do it. And I said, but in your worldview, you don't have any certainty that rape actually is wrong, do you?

So I said, if we're all just stardust, what's the problem with stardust banging into stardust? And he said, well, ultimately, nothing. So in that case, Dan Barker, as an atheist, has an arbitrary decision as to what is good or not good.

It's totally arbitrary, which means he has no objective basis to call any action evil.

Is that a problem?

It's a real problem. Well, I would venture to say, I'll bet that in practical experience, if someone were to go to your car right now, and you watch them punch in your window, open your door, grab your car stereo out, I'm willing to bet you'd either call the police or try to stop them.

So you would live as though stealing is actually wrong.

I would live as though stealing from me is wrong. If he stole from your car and I saw it, I wouldn't necessarily be there.

But watch this, but watch this. In his mind at that moment, his own subjective thought process is that that car stereo is not yours, it's his. That you would have an objective basis in which to disagree, would you not?

I bought the car first.

Yeah, but so he says, what does it matter, you bought the car. He'd say, it doesn't matter that you think it's yours, it's mine now.

It doesn't matter that I could take it from him and say now it's mine.

Right, but you see where you're lost in there? You just, because you don't start with God, abandon all ability to complain and have any moral indignance at all. Because now you're having a debate with the thief about whether or not thieving is a good thing to do.

Whereas as a Christian, I could say there's an objective basis. It's not just my opinion. Stealing violates the very character of God. Stealing is immoral objectively. It's not a debate. I have an objective basis.

Whereas the atheists or naturalist materialists would just have sort of, well if you think so, I happen to not too. But we can have a little debate. We can have, see what I'm saying.

If we lived in a world where everybody stole all the time, is that bad? If everybody's stealing from everybody in the world.

Well, we do live in a world where people steal from each other all the time. We have places that we put them.

No, I mean everybody. As in, you steal from Valley, Valley's stealing from you. There is not one person who doesn't steal. In that world, is it still bad to steal?

Well, we don't live in that world. And if we did, and it was created by God, I would say the absolute standard to which to appeal to would be God's own character. Love does no harm to its neighbor. God is love.

And so if I were to say to you, I'm not going to steal from you.

Why?

Because your name is bearer of God's soul and mind. God is love. Love does no harm to its neighbor. God has told us with certainty, you shall not steal. I have an absolute basis for stealing as immoral, and to condemn it, and to punish it for justice.

But if you abandon God, you have no basis to call anything wrong, and you have no basis for justice. All you have is star stuff on the cosmos in a universe that doesn't care. All we have is sky above us.

So the rapist, the child molester, the thief, and the murderer have just as much a valid opinion as anybody else about their activities. Because they have no certainty. No basis for what is good or what is evil without God.