Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm new here, so forgive me if I step on a few toes.

I welcome thoughtful contributions such as yours. And welcome to AF by the way.

That we are, means only that these units are "ordered" in the way that they are. Anthropic principle. No need for any "imposed order" at all.

I agree with the first part but not the last statement. I have explicitly said that this is not a fine-tuning argument. Any claim of a "design inference" lies beyond the scope on my thesis. My thesis focuses very narrowly on a problem of epistemology. Which is this. Can an atheist apply inductive reasoning without tacitly appealing to formal and final causes?

...you left the threshold at which the uncertainty principle becomes significant, ...The UP dictates that there are things that cannot be determined. You can't know everything.

The OP is not about what we know, but rather how we know it.

...quantum mechanics...is extremely adept at making experimental predictions which are very precise, in spite of the randomness at the heart of things...Take a coin toss...In my universe, I get a head or a tail. In your universe, with "transcendentally imposed order" I might get a baboon.

In my universe the coin toss will also result in either a head or a tail, but it will not result in a baboon any more than lightening causes flowers to bloom. You can justify your belief because coin tosses result in the coins landing one way or the other. You rely on this regularity for gaining knowledge, therefore if you believe in a principle that undermines this regularity, then you are holding two mutually exclusive ideas about how knowledge is acquired.