A look into basic problems of atheism

By Atheist Answers (Facebook Page)

In my studies of philosophy I have realised two things.

Firstly that Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making sense of reality, and secondly I have particularly found the World Views which atheism has as its foundation (i.e Metaphysical Naturalism, Materialism and Physicalism) as totally incoherent and irrational in making sense of reality...

This article is just going to scratch the surface of some issues, so that people can see the type of problems entailed...

You will often hear these two claims by atheists:

(1) "There is no evidence of GOD, show me evidence"...

(2) "All you have is a GOD of the gaps" (basically the accusation that "Christians" etc... fill GOD in as an explanation for certain things)...

I will give a brief response as to these first two initial claims, but then hopefully move on to something of heavier substance.

Claim 1: First of all the atheist has a category fallacy here, we are not arguing about the existence of a creaturely being in which the epistemic parameters of evidence are already agreed upon between the atheist and the Christian (i.e physical evidence for a creaturely Being like Big Foot that has a physical ontology).

If that were the case then of course the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim of Big Foot's existence. But we are not debating the existence of a creaturely Being in which the epistemic parameters are already agreed upon, we are rather debating the existence of a Divine Being in which the epistemic parameters are not agreed upon at all.

This is because this Being has the highest precedence of ontology in which all of reality came from HIM and is dependent on HIM. So if this Being is true everything in reality is proof of HIM, even non belief in HIM is proof for HIM, because if HE exists this can only be possible in a reality in which this Being exists, if HE exists (because He would be a necessary Being).

So to demonstrate partially what this categorical fallacy looks like when asked the opposite way, imagine if I as a Christian asked an atheist:

"Show me evidence of reality"

To which the atheist would respond:

"Evidence is an aspect of that reality, I can not prove the reality by the evidence"

Well this atheist's answer works exactly the same way if the reality its self came out of and is held by GOD.

So to state as an atheist "There is no evidence of GOD, show me evidence" would be like me as a Christian using the evidential criteria we use to prove a creaturely Being, and then saying to the atheist with this pretense now prove Metaphysical Naturalism using that methodology.

As you can see that is a complete category fallacy, as Metaphysical Naturalism is the presuppositional belief as to the very foundation of what reality is, and you can not prove it right or wrong using that line of broken reasoning. The same as you can not prove Christian Theism right or wrong for exactly the same reasons, using that line of broken reasoning. Because Metaphysical Naturalism and Christian Theism are both presuppositional World View positions.

So how can we know if Christian Theism is true or Metaphysical Naturalism is true for example?

If we start with reason\rationality as our axiom, the answer is by internal coherency of these World Views against the reality we claim the idea the World View comes from.

Therefor after looking at this I have concluded only Christian Theism is rationally coherent and atheism is not, and the reasons for this we will look into later...

Claim 2: This is a completely false claim, as a Christian Theist I am not saying concerning that which "we do not understand" I believe GOD did it, rather I am saying that "everything we do know" only makes sense if Christian Theism is true.

Think about the logic of it, if GOD is responsible for all of reality I am hardly going to assert that only some things GOD is responsible for, and they being mainly the things "we do not understand" but the other things in reality GOD is not responsible for.

Either GOD is the reason for all or HE is the reason for nothing at all...

The same as a Metaphysical Naturalist, they are hardly going to approach the position of Metaphysical Naturalism being the explanation for some things. Either Metaphysical Naturalism is the foundation for all or nothing at all.

So why make that claim against a Theist, it is irrational.

Another claim an atheist might make is:

"Science disproves GOD"

First of all by science they are not talking about the scientific method (which we will see later is only plausible as a methodology for knowledge in a Christian Theist reality), they are rather referring to a theory of how historical events have formed the atomic structure of things contemporarily known in the state they are in today (i.e macro-evolution etc...).

Philosophically it is totally irrational to state "Science disproves GOD" as a physical science can not disprove a metaphysicall position.

At best it can

(1) By proving a position like the theory of evolution, it can at best disprove the Christian Theist creationist account of Genesis (which could never really happen as it involves events of history, so at best they can show these processes they believe happened are happening now and then extrapolate that back into the past) but it can not disprove a Theist GOD's existence...

(2) They claim GOD is not necessary for existence so by the law of parsimony they factor HIM out (again this is a position that is an assumption, it does not disprove GOD at all, at best it just makes the assumption that the base of all reality is not upheld by GOD. But again that metaphysical truth can not be proven wrong by physical sciences).

Comparing World Views

The scientific method is based on two premises:

(1)A test must be empirical

(2)A test must be repeatable

If we know something based on these two premises above then we can say what we know is scientifically verified. But for the scientific method to be a logically plausible position to function so that we can truly know anything using it, the scientific method is based on two philosophic presuppositions of reality:

(1)Intelligibility (basically we can truly know things by our senses and rationality) and

(2)Uniformity of nature (is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe).

Now let us first look at whether a Metaphysical Naturalist World View can rationally accommodate (1)Intelligibility in such a reality, that in turn would then allow for the scientific method being plausible in such a reality.

If I ask this question below to a Metaphysical Naturalist:

"When you mix baking soda with vinegar you do not put any causal reaction down to the mixture reacting upon anger, love, hate, logic, the right thing to do, the rational thing to do or any other emotive causation...No you put it down to 100% blind laws of uniform deterministic physics of cause and effect...

Now if humans are nothing more than chemicals (atoms and energy) can you please explain how you categorically dichotomize the two and give one an emotive, rational (etc...) causation and the other you do not???

To clarify why would you say a person did such and such an act because he was angry or because he thought it was the logical thing to do, yet you would never say the baking soda and vinegar mix ever did anything based on such an existential causation but rather only deterministic chemistry?"

Now the Metaphysical Naturalist can not answer that question, they are unable to give an epistlemology that is rational. So we have a problem, because if we are to exist in a reality in which we could know anything we have to have the presupposition that we have an intelligence and a will to act upon that intelligence. But based upon our philosophic agency in a Metaphysical Naturalist World View those two things (intelligence and a will) can not be possible. Now we know by existential experince that we do have intelligence and a will to act, so we take it as axiomatic, and thus suppose we have these properties in our nature as humans. But these things are only plausible in a Christian Theistic reality.

First lets answer how does one objectively and naturalistically quantitatively define the "will"?

The answer is they can not.

So how is it known?

It is only known by experience just like every other existential property, like for example love, hate, self awareness, conciseness, rationality, intelligence, jealousy, pain etc...

All these existential properties are only known by experience, so to then say there is no "free will" is absurd for the only reason one knows what "free will" is is because they experience it. To deny "free will" is to deny every existential property and that includes self awareness and intelligence.

You see for the Materialistic atheist, unless he can prove something by naturalistic objectivity he will not accept it as being part of reality. Yet he can not by naturalistic objectivity prove any of his own existential properties, and that includes intelligence and free will. Yet he must rely on these being true properties to know anything, yet he has to deny them existing because they do not fit his epistemic criteria for his World View.

The problem is his World View is broken (it is incoherent and irrational).

We by nature have immaterial parts to our ontology and that is why every existential property we have is immaterial. Take for example thoughts, thoughts by nature are immaterial, in an objective and naturalistic way there is no reason for me to believe any human body contains thoughts, if I search a human body all I will find is chemicals just like if I searched a cup of tea. Now the only reason I believe that other human bodies experience thoughts and self awareness un-like a cup of tea, is because I experience self awareness and thoughts (and I am a human body) but there is no naturalistic or objective way to show this.

(I am not saying when one experiences something we do not see activity in the body (brain), but objectively all we know is that there is chemical activity in the body. But for us to then believe something is experiencing the emotion of love or hate in those chemicals reacting is only believed by that persons testimony, and we trust their testimony not because we can naturalistically prove the emotion of love or hate exists. But we trust it exists in them because we believe it exist in us, and we only believe that because we experience it...).

Because of problems like this, that is why a leading proponent of Neo-Darwinistic evolution has to say something as stupid as "consciousness is an illusion" (Daniel Dennett)

He does this in order to keep to the logical position of Metaphysical Naturalism, yet if consciousness is an illusion we can know no more than a dead person, as we are no more conscious etc...

This is the sort of irrationality that has to come from holding to such a crazy World View...

So the Metaphsical Naturalist has no bases for the philosophic position of (1)Intelligibilityand therefor can not rely on premise 1 (A test must be empirical) of the scientific method. So science is only logically functional if (out of the two) Christian Theism is true, because we are made in the immaterial existential image of GOD that functions through matter but is not a function of matter, sure it can be limited and affected by matter, but our immaterial Being is not a function of matter.

Now lets look at (2) Uniformity of nature from the Metaphsical Naturalist position. Now there are two ways I could look at this, the complicated way or the very simple way, both have the same conclusion so I am going to keep this simple.

First let me explain what the uniformity of nature is, it is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

Uniformity of nature being true is very important as these laws that we believe have been and are uniform must be uniform for us to know anything because all of our reality is railed on them. That includes our thinking (the laws of logic), our memory, our senses etc...

Now a Christian Theist has a reason why reality is and should be uniform in their World View because GOD's nature is unchanging, yet a Metaphsical Naturalist has no reason for why reality should be uniform in their World View. They must just rely on this by faith according to their World View.

The only problem is that if the Metaphysical Naturalist World View is true, then the origin of the universe and it's nature relies on a singularity. Well then the same universe can not logically in turn also rely on the uniformity of nature as well, as the two are incompatible together.

This is because the very nature that we trust is uniform came by an non uniform singularity (this is to say the universe it's self did not come from any known uniform cause of nature). Now if that is true nature as we know it came from a non uniform singularity. And thus nature can not be relied on to be uniform because if it was truly uniform it could not exist, and so it is by it's own nature non uniform. Yet we can only know anything in nature because of uniformity. So according to the Metaphysical Naturalist position there is no reason to believe the future will be uniform (thus everything we know now will mean nothing) and there is no reason to believe that nature has not had several singularity\changes in the past (in fact we have to believe the properties of nature changed at least once), and how would we know if nature had? As our senses and memory rely on these laws. This is why cosmology has lead Metaphysical Naturalism to a loose end:

"Astronomers have now found they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven by their own methods that the world began abruptly in act of creation in which it can trace the seeds of every star, planet and living thing in this cosmos and on the earth and they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they can not hope to discover, that there are what I or any one would call super natural forces at work is now a scientifically proven fact" - Robert Jastrow

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event a universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life and one which has a underlying one might say super natural plan" - Arno Penzias (the man who co-discovered the Radiation Echo)...

"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly super natural" - Arthur Eddington (thee contemporary of Einstein who was an expert in General Relativity)

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a Super Intellect has monkied with physics, chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature" - Sir Fred Hoyle

Now a Christian Theist can rely on both the uniformity of nature and singularities, because if the GOD of Christian Theism holds up reality then:

(1)The uniformity is held together by HIS rational and coherent nature

(2)The singularities come about by HIS will which can do contingent things