What Makes Athiesim Irrational?

Once I was a tadpole beginning to begin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey in a banana tree. Now I’m a professor with a PhD.

Once I was a tadpole beginning to begin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey in a banana tree. Now I’m a professor with a PhD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three points:

  1. Why is there something rather than nothing? The material world exists. This is not an illusion. 

Q: Do you think the material world exists?

Q: Do you think the things that exist have always existed?

Q: What caused things to come into existence?

A: Only two possibilities, either some thing caused it or, no thing caused it. What do you think?

  1. The Problem of evil.

Q: What would be one of the most morally reprehensible act you can think of?

Q: When you say this is evil, are you describing the actions themselves, or, are you simply describing your own personal feelings about those actions, or, are you defining what your cultures point of view is?

  1. If they are describing their own personal point of view or, their own cultures point of view, then the objection to the problem of evil just disappeared.
  2. What they are doing that point is defining subjective evil not objective evil.

The argument of evil as an argument against God’s existence requires evil to be objective. For evil to be objective then good must be objective as well.

As an atheist where do you get objective morality, moral absolutes, moral laws, that have intrinsic value  in a world where all that exists is time, space and matter?

You cannot have moral law without a moral law giver. How do you get “good” and “evil” “virtue” or, “vice” from biology?

How do you get “right” and “wrong” from genetic mutations and natural selection?

For evil to be a legitimate argument i.e., a real problem that affects us all, it must be objective evil, that is, independent, or, outside of the mind.

Subjective evil is dependent on the individual mind. It’s your opinion or the opinion of the group.

Evolution can only produce relativistic morality, and if relativism is true than there is no problem with evil because what is evil to you may not be evil to me.

Followed through to its logical conclusion, you would not be able to say that what Hitler did was wrong or, evil. In fact Adolph believed what he was doing was right and good, by expediting the evolutionary process because he believed he was removing the weaker races.

  1. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview.
  1. Some think consciousness is an illusion.

Q: What is an illusion?

Q: Isn’t an illusion (like a mirage) when your consciousness is appeared to falsely?

Q: Can rocks have illusions?  Can an unconsciousness person have an illusion?

Q; If consciousness is having an illusion, is the illusion having an illusion, and how would you know you were having one?

Illustration:   Student to lecturer, “How do I know I even exist?” Lecturer, “Whom shall I say is asking?”

Picture your mother washing dishes at the kitchen sink.  What color was her hair? Was she doing them by hand or loading them in the dishwasher?

How about guilt? Have you ever felt guilty?

The solution is repentance and forgiveness.

That is why Christianity is the most logical and satisfying answer to the ultimate question.

Now, where was your mother just now? Was she in your brain? No. If we cut open your brain would we see your mother in there?

When an atheist speaks on matters of morality from his own worldview, in order for his argument to make sense he must borrow from the Biblical worldview.  And that is because he lives in God’s world and doesn’t even know it.  And ultimately his argument is a complete contradiction.  Take Richard Dawkins as an example.  He is the famous British evolutionist atheist from Oxford University.  His atheism forces him to say that there is no such thing as an absolute standard of morality.  And under very next page he is telling us how immoral God is.  He says God is say sadomasochistic, homophobic, anti-woman, a cosmic bully, and an ethnic cleanser etc.  Where does he get that from?  None of these accusations of God being immoral make sense in an amoral atheist worldview.  If there is no morality how can you deny the existence of God on the basis of morality?

Objective reality and morality can only come from a Biblical worldview something he says does not exist.  So here we have Richard Dawkins living in a contradiction.  Any thinking person can look at the real world and realize that if something is evil than there must be something good to measure it by.

The atheist who refuses to believe in God on the basis that God is immoral yet says there is no morality is a walking contradiction and he does not even realize it not because he can’t see it, it’s because he won’t see it. He can’t see the forest because of the trees.

Plants produce plants. Plants cannot become animals.  Animals produce animals, they cannot become men.  Humans produce humans. Man cannot become God.

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ”

 

View more Questions About God