Demolishing Alvin Plantinga's EAAN and William Lane Craig's Moral Argument

I am writing this because I am, to be up front about the matter, sick and tired of other atheists making bad counter-arguments to these theistic arguments that don't actually address them. WLC is good at taking his opponents to task on this, and anyone is welcome to copy and re-use my counter-arguments.

EAAN countered, 3 separate counter-arguments:

Let me present 3 counters to the EAAN here.

1. The Argument from Romantic Love and Marriage:

P1. Over 90% of newly engaged couples believe almost nothing apart from death can separate them.
P2. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce.
C. At least 40% of those couples' belief about this major life event was false

Discussion: Such a widespread false belief can be explained much better on naturalistic evolution than theism: This cognitively biased belief, in obvious ways, promotes reproduction.

2. The Argument from Honesty:

P1. In general, telling the truth is easier than lying, in the sense that liars have to put a lot of effort into making sure what they say appears consistent enough so as to not be transparent.
P2. This effort reflects the fact that, without the effort, chances are, it will be obvious.
C: P(S/H) is large, but P(S/DH) is small, where S = claims "slip by" without being detected as suspect, H = Honesty (claims are true), DH = Dis-Honesty (Claims are false).
Discussion: The analogy between P(S/H) and P(A/R) should be obvious, where A = adaptive beliefs and R = rational beliefs. Thus, we have a good prima facie reason to believe that P(A/R) is high but that P(A/IR) is low (IR = irrational beliefs)

3. The Argument from Taxicab Drivers

P1. A rational person would not knowingly and given other options ride a taxicab driven by a hallucinating and delirious asylum patient who hasn't taken their daily medicine today
C. P(NT&RP&TL/MID) is low, while P(NT&RP&TL/MHED) is high, where NT = Negotiates Turns well, RP = takes passenger(s) to the Right Place, TL = obeys Traffic Laws (apart from trivial matters like going 2 mph over the limit when warranted by traffic conditions), MID = Mentally ill Driver, MHED = Mentally Healthy, Experienced Driver

This DESPITE the fact that, as Plantinga would say, "I can conceive of" a situation in which the crazy driver thought that pedestrians should be run over but hits the brake instead of the gas, and that the mall is someone's house but mis-reads the road signs.

The analogy here should be obvious.







Craig's Moral Argument Demolished:

Suppose we have a logical argument with premises 1 and 2 and a conclusion:

P1
P2
therefore C

Also suppose that P2 is supported by an argument from P2a and P2b:

P2a
P2b
therefore P2

Now the original argument may be expanded as

P1
P2a
P2b
therefore C

Now, suppose I can find a set of 2 premises P3 and P4 such that P1, P3 and P4 logically entail ~(P2a), or equivalently, P2a, P3, and P4 entail ~P1. It thus follows that, given P3 and P4, it is not the case that both P1 and P2a are true, and thus P3 and P4, if true, serve to undermine the argument by depriving it of its probative force.
Here, we have

P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
P2a: If it "feels like" objective moral values exist, objective moral values exist
P2b: It "feels like" objective moral values exist
P2: Objective moral values exist
P3: Humans are a social species
P4: If God does not exist, the members of a social species would have still evolved to "feel like" objective moral values exist.
C: God exists

If it isn't obvious how P1, P2a, P3, and P4 cannot all be true:

From P3 and P4, if God does not exist, humans would "feel like" objective moral values exist
Combining with P2a, if God does not exist, objective moral values exist (in direct contradiction to P1)


Now, the problem with the moral argument is clear. Regardless of the truth of P2b, the fact that empirical science gives us grounds for believing P3 and P4 is sufficient to demolish the argument.

Intro

On June 25, 2010....I reasoned as follows (I think the rest explains itself). I am 100% certain that I will not go to hell for this (as explained.)

1. The principle of mental normalcy. Assume you are not currently
   in a mental state that is so altered and delusional that your syllogistic logical reasoning is ruined. This should be a given, because no argument or statement has any meaning without it. In addition, you may be a human but you are not “you” right now if this principle is not valid. Therefore, one always must be willing to assume the principle of mental normalcy as a postulate.
2. The principle of operational meaning. If no one is capable of understanding anything about the meaning of a statement, they can neither believe it nor act on it. In fact, it may as well be in another language or even total gibberish. Anything in meaningful language is only in meaningful language in order to convey meaning, which is a prerequisite for it to be either believed or acted upon.
3. If we assume (1) and (2), Christianity as most Christians “understand” it today is logically self-contradictory and patently absurd. This is so not just in its minor details but its entire foundation and central “principles”. These absurdities will be outlined below.

Absurdity #1. Substitutionary atonement: Jesus Christ supposedly died to save humanity. If this is interpreted in accordance with the Bible, we are to take this to mean that a) God decided that sinful people need to be punished in Hell, and this is consistent with God being good because it is part of being a “Just and Fair” God., b) God loved the world and wants what is best for His people, c) God is all-powerful, and d)God sacrificed the human form of Himself to save humanity. Or, in other words, “God sacrificed himself to himself to please himself so he wouldn't do what he knew at first was just and fair, and he did all of this in order to be just and fair and loving”, or “god knew his initial idea of what to do was flawed but had to convince himself by doing something against his will”. If God “ had to convince himself by doing something against his will” that means he “cannot think what he wants to think without doing something he doesn't want to do”. This certainly does not fit my definition of an “all-powerful being”. Rebuttal attempts to this argument do not pass the test of the three principles at the top. For instance, “There are simply some things that we cannot understand (in this life)” ...well, if we “cannot understand” them, they have no operational meaning – see the “principle of operational meaning.”

Absurdity #2. Not preaching the Gospel to save many from hell ...In order to be compatible with the notion of a “just and fair” God, Christians tend to posit that those who do not “voluntarily choose” to reject God are saved, including babies and young children, those with mental handicaps, and those who have not “heard the word”. (otherwise God is not acting to give us “free will” as a reason to allow anyone to go to hell) This means that missionaries actually save no one and knowingly risk the eternal damnation of many people simply by telling them “the word” - why someone would want to do this is beyond me. The most common rebuttal attempt is that “God says to spread the word, and so you are carrying out His plan.” But this makes no sense if God “wants everyone to be saved”. Also, some Christians might argue that you shouldn't “argue with carrying out God's plan”. This again makes no sense (see Absurdity #4). Another rebuttal attempt is that “God can be a loving God and still command everyone to do something which would send some people to hell, as there are simply some things that we cannot understand (in this life)” which is nonsense by the “principle of operational meaning” as explained earlier.

Absurdity #3. Killing babies and the future of human reproduction. Similarly, why not just kill babies to make sure they are saved? You might say the only logical answer is: To allow more people to be created in future generations who can and will be saved. But surely God could do this himself? You also might say that one of the Ten Commandments is “do not kill” but if doing so would allow another person to go to a better place, this contradicts “love thy neighbor as thyself” since if you “love thyself” you would wish to go to heaven. Another rebuttal attempt is along the lines of “but the Bible says there are things to be enjoyed in earthly life as well” which is based on the notion that assumes that infinite sacrifices are to be made for finite rewards, and that doing so is part of God's plan and is a good thing. This can only be “rationalized” by another absurdity, the same old “there are simply some things that we cannot understand...” with the same problem as before.

Absurdity #4. The fate of other people is part of God's plan, but he needs your help in carrying it out, but yet God doesn't want the result of such to happen... Okay, “part of God's plan” is for the Gospel to be spread and for some to have the free will to reject it and subsequently go to hell...but he needs your help, so be sure to spread the word so that.....uh......some people will do what God doesn't want them to. Hmmmmm....kind of illogical.

Absurdity #5. Changing your mind in hell – Lee Strobel argues that “some people will always want to be at the center of the Universe...so even if they could change their mind in hell they wouldn't do so, so it doesn't matter anyway, and what is God to do with these people”. Nonsense....there are many atheists who will gladly profess that they will change their mind when they see evidence that God exists....and surely being in hell is an example of such? Anyone who thinks that people in their right mind will not want to get out of eternal torment has.....dare I say lost their mind? And if you think that “once in hell it is too late” this kind of goes against the whole idea of “free will”eh?

Absurdity #6. No real sacrifice was made at all. If God can do whatever he wants, he has no direct use for human flesh. To send his Son to lose his human flash is no sacrifice at all, as He can still do anything he wants such as make a new body...unless he is either not all-powerful (and not divine) or chooses not to...

Absurdity #7. The principle of operational meaning wants us to figure out what happens to semi-Christian ignostics (and I do not mean agnostics) when they die...and yet I'm fairly sure no two Christians can ever fully agree on the issue. This is a major problem.

Absurdity #8. The “quicksand argument”. If I am walking down the banks of a muddy river and it looks like ordinary mud, I won't think much of it. Now suppose I fall into some quicksand. The reason I fell in was that I saw no evidence there was quicksand there. It was not in my “free will” because a free choice cannot be made without complete information, as an uninformed choice is not a free choice at all. I did not “freely choose” to fall into the quicksand!!! However, if I saw my friend get swallowed up in the same place 20 minutes ago, that is different. I would then have the information I needed to make the choice and then I would have chosen of my own free will to risk getting swallowed by quicksand. Since atheists do not believe in God because they “have not seen their friend fall in”, how can you argue that they are sinking in “of their own free will”? Atheists believe there is no God only because to them there is insufficient evidence.

Loophole Closing #1. Annihilation rather than eternal torment. This is a red herring, since if one wishes to avoid it then psychologically it is also torment (although not eternal), and if one doesn't care the issue is moot anyway.

Loophole Closing #2. Universal salvation – I think of that as a form of Deism, so that is fine, but that is not what I am referring to by “Christianity”.

Afterword: Why I am 100% certain I will go to heaven if Christianity is correct: Because that would mean that the fact that I cannot understand the “rationale” behind it puts me in the “mentally handicapped” category and I am saved. I am therefore not afraid!

But what about Jesus's documentable history? Ok, maybe he lapsed into a coma rather than dying. Even medical professionals make mistakes when it comes to death, even when there is more than one to certify death. The “spear in his side” might not have actually pierced his heart, and even if it did, believe it or not some people do survive “rupture of the myocardium” without supernatural explanations being needed. A common attempted rebuttal of this argument is that “he would've then been too injured to do what he did”. However, the guards of the tomb might have had ADHD and looked away while another person (or a wild animal for that matter, such as a bear) rolled his stone away, or maybe the guards all got drunk, or some such thing, and he escaped, though injured. It is not implausible that people around him might not have reacted to his injury in the way you would expect. Even if a person dies in public the people around him or her do not necessarily react the way you might expect, as evidenced by for example the Wal-Mart employee not too long ago who was trampled to death and customers wanted to continue “business as usual”...so you cannot argue on the basis of “implausible human behavior” in this way...