...almost a mental disorder.
|
In my last newsletter I made a clear and strong argument showing that naturalism, basically the belief that "If I can't see it, I don't believe it", is unscientific and irrational. It is a leap of faith. If you want to review what I wrote I made a less verbose version and put it online here: Naturalism. In this newsletter I am going to build upon this argument and demonstrate that atheism is illogical and irrational. It too is a leap of faith. There are many categories of atheism. The form of atheism discussed here is the traditional usage which is the belief that no God or gods exist in or beyond the universe. More specifically this newsletter addresses the two categories of atheism known as strong atheism and metaphysical atheism. Other categories tend more or less towards agnosticism. The atheistic claim is in no way defensible, holds no evidence, and provides no proofs. There are at least two ways we can know about reality: scientific induction and deductive reasoning. Neither science nor deductive reasoning can disprove the existence of a non-material reality. Therefore, we have no rational basis or reason to assert that a non-material entity or being does not exist. For an atheist to make the claim, "God does not exist" he would have to be omniscient. That is, physically he would have to be able to see and know all point of the material universe at the same time and be able to escape physical boundaries. In the physical realm it would be like claiming there is no life in the universe except that which is on earth. The only way to prove this is to see all parts of the universe at the same time. It is not enough to see the entire universe systematically throughout time, as once you leave an area life could move there and you would not know it. There is no rational deductive argument where a sound conclusion could end in "Therefore there is no God" other than, tentatively, this: Major premise: I am currently seeing all point of the universe and have the ability to detect immaterialness. Minor premise: I see and detect no God. Conclusion: Therefore there is no God. An atheist may say, "I see no compelling evidence for God's existence." This is agnosticism. Not seeing evidence for something does not disprove something; it merely means that at this time and in this place the evidence that you have has not convinced you. However, there is the possibility that in the future further evidence could be revealed. Major premise: No human is omniscient. Minor premise: Atheists are human. Conclusion: Atheism is illogical an irrational. An atheist may say, "I can't believe in a God who allows evil." or "I can't believe in a God who sends people to hell." Not understanding something does not mean it does not exist. I can't believe this country voted for an inexperienced socialist with terrorist ties for president. I wish it was not true but not liking it and not understanding it does not mean it does not exist. Atheists like to claim the intellectual high ground and many say that Christianity is just a crutch. The truth is that from where I sit, science and reason make atheism look like an emotional crutch and wishful thinking. Perhaps atheists are rejecting God because they have had a bad relationship with their father. Instead of inventing God, have atheists invented non-God? Have they invented atheism to escape some of the frightening implications of God's existence? This is why atheists need to attack and mock Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves. The Bible says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." |