Apparently some atheists with whom Matt Slick deals have been accusing him of presenting a false dichotomy. He's not. Let me explain.
Matt has correctly identified the following as a dichotomy:
1) It is the case that God created the universe; or
2) It is not the case that God created the universe.
Matt has pointed out that if either of those statements is false, then the other is true.
The atheists have objected based on the fact that there are several possible ways by which (2) may be true, while (1) is false. For example:
(a) statement (1) is false if something other than God created the universe;
-- (a)(i) statement (1) is false if Odin created the universe;
-- (a)(ii) statement (1) is false if Zeus created the universe;
-- (a)(iii) statement (1) is false if Krishna created the universe;
-- (a)(iv) statement (1) is false if Allah created the universe;
(b) statement (1) is false if the universe is uncreated; and
(c) statement (1) is false if there is no universe.
While it's true that there are (logically speaking) these various options, it does not follow that the dichotomy is not a true dichotomy.
Where the atheists would have a point is against the case where Matt demonstrated that (c) is false, and consequently affirmed that (1) is true. That would be a fallacious way of arguing - but that's not what Matt does. Similarly, Matt doesn't simply demonstrate that (a)(ii) is false, and consequently affirm that (1) is true. Instead, Matt demonstrates that (2) is false and consequently affirms that (1) is true.
In other words, the dichotomy is:
1) It is true that all of A, B, and C are true; or
2) It is not true that all of A, B, and C are true.
But it is still a dichotomy, and Matt's argument is valid so long as he doesn't simply jump from A is true, therefore 1 is true.
-TurretinFan
