Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

The Failure of Atheism to Account for Existence

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chad

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
17,078
The Failure of Atheism to Account for Existence

by Matt Slick

As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence.

Okay, so we exist. That's obvious. And though atheists like to tout the evolutionary flag, evolution isn't the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what caused it to come into existence?

When answering this question, there are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities. It is either one or the other. There is no third option. Let’s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause.

If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn’t work.

If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work.

If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn’t work either.

Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and ultimately we get here? Atheism can’t help us here. So, let’s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause. If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain.

A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist?

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.

In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

You see? The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here. Atheism can’t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence. It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.

Okay, finally, even though it isn’t necessary in this video, I’ll deal with one of the standard objections atheists have when this topic comes up. What brought God into existence?

The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always existed. He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It’s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first domino that started it all, you’d never find it because you’d have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also mean that there you can’t have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can’t be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn’t have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past. So too with the universe. It was caused to exist at a specific point in time. The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create the universe and who, as the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, “is from everlasting to everlasting.”
 
The Failure of Atheism to Account for Existence




If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn’t work.
Who are you to say that would be illogical? That's a personal opinion on your own i'm not saying i'm an atheist but this whole article you've typed up is just biased.
 
Who are you to say that would be illogical? That's a personal opinion on your own i'm not saying i'm an atheist but this whole article you've typed up is just biased.

The article being biased is just your opinion.
 
Who are you to say that would be illogical? That's a personal opinion on your own i'm not saying i'm an atheist but this whole article you've typed up is just biased.

Think about this for a minute. Nothing does not come out of nothing right?

My take on this, is everything that was made came from God. He was all there was before anything else existed. He is non-created, self existent. Everything that was created to get the ball rolling came from himself, out of himself.

This passage here:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Ties in with the light that was created here:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

It seems that in VS 3 the light of the world was created, but that light was not the sun because the lights in the sky were not made until here:

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
 
When you attempt to tell somebody they're wrong, it's best to target your explanation to them personally. 'Atheism' is a pretty weak banner around which to rally, but then many Christians don't understand Existentialism, Materialism, or other philosophies well enough to speak to them. Instead of arguing against a non-belief ("I don't believe in fairies!"), find out what they do believe instead.
Here's an example of what I mean: If I do not drink booze at all, then I am a teetotalist. A boozehound can try to tell me how much fun I'm not having because teetotalism doesn't have the 'fun factor' which alcohol provides, but I'm not really concerned about being a "devout teetotalist." Teetotalism does not speak to the other fulfilling aspects and beliefs that are core to my life; it doesn't intend to. It merely describes something that I do not do. I am a Christian, which I find fulfilling; I am an intellectual and enjoy learning; I am many things which do not involve the issue of alcohol (whether abstinence or indulgence), except that perhaps an excess amount of alcohol would prevent me from living out things that I consider important.

When someone says, "I am an atheist," you should not come back with, "Well, there is a God and you're screwed without Him!" You should instead discover what they have filled that hole with. It may require a change in philosophy for them to see and know God, but often it's just a change of perspective. Perspectives don't change with arguments; they change with experience. If someone has a negative experience when talking to you about God, then it will close their minds even further. If you want to know what that feels like, try talking to a zealous Muslim and take note of how you feel afterward. But if a conversation about God leads to things which they value--world peace, charity, family--then they're doing something that is very profound: they're being vulnerable as a person. And when someone is open with a child of God who is actually acting the way a child of God should, then they're open to God Himself. They may very well find that the beliefs and values they hold regarding this physical world will do, in fact, have their origin and zenith in the Creator.

I'm going to wager that most Christians on this forum are teetotalers and believe alcohol is bad under virtually any circumstance. Well, for an atheist who lives in a culture saturated by religious hypocrisy, then shoving God in their face would be like them shoving a beer in yours. Just as there is a time and place for them to offer you a malted beverage without being rude, there is a way to effectively reach them without triggering their fight-or-flight instinct.
 
Last edited:
When you attempt to tell somebody they're wrong, it's best to target your explanation to them personally. 'Atheism' is a pretty weak banner around which to rally, but then many Christians don't understand Existentialism, Materialism, or other philosophies well enough to speak to them. Instead of arguing against a non-belief ("I don't believe in fairies!"), find out what they do believe instead.
Here's an example of what I mean: If I do not drink booze at all, then I am a teetotalist. A boozehound can try to tell me how much fun I'm not having because teetotalism doesn't have the 'fun factor' which alcohol provides, but I'm not really concerned about being a "devout teetotalist." Teetotalism does not speak to the other fulfilling aspects and beliefs that are core to my life; it doesn't intend to. It merely describes something that I do not do. I am a Christian, which I find fulfilling; I am an intellectual and enjoy learning; I am many things which do not involve the issue of alcohol (whether abstinence or indulgence), except that perhaps an excess amount of alcohol would prevent me from living out things that I consider important.

When someone says, "I am an atheist," you should not come back with, "Well, there is a God and you're screwed without Him!" You should instead discover what they have filled that hole with. It may require a change in philosophy for them to see and know God, but often it's just a change of perspective. Perspectives don't change with arguments; they change with experience. If someone has a negative experience when talking to you about God, then it will close their minds even further. If you want to know what that feels like, try talking to a zealous Muslim and take note of how you feel afterward. But if a conversation about God leads to things which they value--world peace, charity, family--then they're doing something that is very profound: they're being vulnerable as a person. And when someone is open with a child of God who is actually acting the way a child of God should, then they're open to God Himself. They may very well find that the beliefs and values they hold regarding this physical world will do, in fact, have their origin and zenith in the Creator.

I'm going to wager that most Christians on this forum are teetotalers and believe alcohol is bad under virtually any circumstance. Well, for an atheist who lives in a culture saturated by religious hypocrisy, then shoving God in their face would be like them shoving a beer in yours. Just as there is a time and place for them to offer you a malted beverage without being rude, there is a way to effectively reach them without triggering their fight-or-flight instinct.

Wow great post man i actually really enjoyed reading that thanks.
 
I'm going to wager that most Christians on this forum are teetotalers and believe alcohol is bad under virtually any circumstance.

Your post has a valid point, but the line I quoted is wrong and should not have been said. You've made a presumptuous statement about "most" of the 18,000 members you do not know personally.
 
I drink a few swallows of blackberry wine nearly every night before bed to help me fall asleep quicker and feel less pain for several hours which helps me stay asleep longer. Alcohol is not evil, it was commonly used down throughout the ages, as the poor man's pain killer, and helper to sleep. Thats why drinking early in the morning was frowned upon, as there is less reason for drinking it while the day begins, and one needs to be fully attentive for the day's work. Alcohol much like guns are often used in a bad way, but niether are wrong to use... just to misuse. Atheism has several holes in its theories, but they believe (and they say they have no faith :) ) that one day science will prove them right in every way. But science doesnt prove them right. If any honest atheist admits it, they know that the idea of evolution forming man from earlier forms of man/animals, then there would be significant fossil evidence showing the missing links. And they cannot concieve how the large ball of creation that became the big bang center came to be, and why it chose to bang. And for those touting the revolving universe theory, they cannot add in enough matter to cause the universe's gravity to pull it all back together for another big bang. They pick and chose the things that they percieve may help thier "faith" in the nonexistance of God, and ignore that which doesnt saying that science will one day prove thier faith right.
 
I drink a few swallows of blackberry wine nearly every night before bed to help me fall asleep quicker and feel less pain for several hours which helps me stay asleep longer. Alcohol is not evil, it was commonly used down throughout the ages, as the poor man's pain killer, and helper to sleep. Thats why drinking early in the morning was frowned upon, as there is less reason for drinking it while the day begins, and one needs to be fully attentive for the day's work. Alcohol much like guns are often used in a bad way, but niether are wrong to use... just to misuse. Atheism has several holes in its theories, but they believe (and they say they have no faith :) ) that one day science will prove them right in every way. But science doesnt prove them right. If any honest atheist admits it, they know that the idea of evolution forming man from earlier forms of man/animals, then there would be significant fossil evidence showing the missing links. And they cannot concieve how the large ball of creation that became the big bang center came to be, and why it chose to bang. And for those touting the revolving universe theory, they cannot add in enough matter to cause the universe's gravity to pull it all back together for another big bang. They pick and chose the things that they percieve may help thier "faith" in the nonexistance of God, and ignore that which doesnt saying that science will one day prove thier faith right.

I agree with you up until the halfway point. Here's the problem i have with the rest of your post. Atheism isnt a theory. Belief doesnt necessarily require faith, I believe that Gravity exists. Also, we have significant fossil evidence showing "missing links", its why so many christians accept evolution, too.

I understand what you mean by "Science doesnt prove them right", and i agree with that. Science isnt supposed to prove them right or wrong, just like science isnt supposed to prove that Christianity is right, and im fine with that, as most atheists dont believe that Science will prove them right. What i dont understand is what you mean by "Ignore that which doesnt saying that science will one day prove their faith right".
 
When you attempt to tell somebody they're wrong, it's best to target your explanation to them personally. 'Atheism' is a pretty weak banner around which to rally, but then many Christians don't understand Existentialism, Materialism, or other philosophies well enough to speak to them. Instead of arguing against a non-belief ("I don't believe in fairies!"), find out what they do believe instead.
Here's an example of what I mean: If I do not drink booze at all, then I am a teetotalist. A boozehound can try to tell me how much fun I'm not having because teetotalism doesn't have the 'fun factor' which alcohol provides, but I'm not really concerned about being a "devout teetotalist." Teetotalism does not speak to the other fulfilling aspects and beliefs that are core to my life; it doesn't intend to. It merely describes something that I do not do. I am a Christian, which I find fulfilling; I am an intellectual and enjoy learning; I am many things which do not involve the issue of alcohol (whether abstinence or indulgence), except that perhaps an excess amount of alcohol would prevent me from living out things that I consider important.

When someone says, "I am an atheist," you should not come back with, "Well, there is a God and you're screwed without Him!" You should instead discover what they have filled that hole with. It may require a change in philosophy for them to see and know God, but often it's just a change of perspective. Perspectives don't change with arguments; they change with experience. If someone has a negative experience when talking to you about God, then it will close their minds even further. If you want to know what that feels like, try talking to a zealous Muslim and take note of how you feel afterward. But if a conversation about God leads to things which they value--world peace, charity, family--then they're doing something that is very profound: they're being vulnerable as a person. And when someone is open with a child of God who is actually acting the way a child of God should, then they're open to God Himself. They may very well find that the beliefs and values they hold regarding this physical world will do, in fact, have their origin and zenith in the Creator.

I'm going to wager that most Christians on this forum are teetotalers and believe alcohol is bad under virtually any circumstance. Well, for an atheist who lives in a culture saturated by religious hypocrisy, then shoving God in their face would be like them shoving a beer in yours. Just as there is a time and place for them to offer you a malted beverage without being rude, there is a way to effectively reach them without triggering their fight-or-flight instinct.

Great post. I would prefer someone who discusses and explains their position instead of simply quoting scriptures or soundbite answers.
 
Originally Posted by Green Berean
I'm going to wager that most Christians on this forum are teetotalers and believe alcohol is bad under virtually any circumstance

Well there is at least one who doesn't fall into that category. I'd be surprised to learn that I was alone
 
Well, Chad, I'm sorry to have offended you and your 18,000 members that I don't know. Surely my point wasn't lost in the fracas?
 
I'm going to wager that most Christians on this forum are teetotalers and believe alcohol is bad under virtually any circumstance. Well, for an atheist who lives in a culture saturated by religious hypocrisy, then shoving God in their face would be like them shoving a beer in yours.

What does being a 'tee-totaler" have to do with atheism?

I would say the atheists are doing a pretty good job of "shoving beer" in our faces. They've taken prayer out of the schools. They've removed the 10 commandments from the courtrooms.
Stores no longer advertize "Merry Christmas". Television companies remove "one nation under God" from our pledge of allegiance.

Why do atheists pick on Christians? Why not go to predominately Muslim countries or Hindu countries? Why not pick on wiccans and satanists? Aren't they just as guilty of belieivng in a
higher power also. If there is no God, why do atheists care what we believe anyway? What are they afraid of?
 
You made some relevant points, namely that atheists aren't persecuted in America like they often claim. That being said, my only point is to get away from referring to people en mass and starting speaking to individuals. Jesus preached to crowds, but His greatest moments were in smaller gatherings and even one-on-one encounters. I wonder that He spent so much time rather than simply writing down His message. It's because the Gospel is not a one-time event in someone's life. Many of your other questions go off into rabbit trails which I won't pursue because my simple metaphor was lost on you, so I will leave it at that.
 
As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence.
So what? Atheism has no dogma and atheists are only grouped together by a disbelief in a god. Atheism is the rejection of the god claim and that's it. Just because an atheist has no answer for our existence does not mean that god created us. It is an honest statement that we don't know.
 
Atheism has no dogma and atheists are only grouped together by a disbelief in a god.
Atheism is a choice to not believe what they know as true.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

The condemnation in this world comes from the fact that "light" (knowledge) has come, but men love darkness rather than light because their own deeds are wicked.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
 
Why do atheists pick on Christians? Why not go to predominately Muslim countries or Hindu countries? Why not pick on wiccans and satanists? Aren't they just as guilty of belieivng in a
higher power also. If there is no God, why do atheists care what we believe anyway? What are they afraid of
Because I live in America where most people are Christians that is why atheists in America stand up to christian thought. We care what Christians believe because those beliefs affect our society in a negative way sometimes. Christians in America work against LGBT rights, try to get creationism into our school textbooks, many actively try to undermine science specifically evolution and cosmology, want my kids to learn about your god in school while suppressing learning about other gods, discouragement of rational thought, many are anti medical science like vaccines or treatments that endanger us all. Many atheists that are from a christian family and were Christians previously are rejected by family and friends when they tell them they are an atheist which leads to a lot of hurt and pain. Christians disparage other religions.

These things are done as a direct result of their christian beliefs. Some atheists are jerks as well but that has noting to do with their lack of belief in gods because atheists believe many different things and have no dogma, we only agree that we have a lack of belief.
 
we only agree that we have a lack of belief.
A lack of belief is not an excuse, because God gives faith to those who what to believe.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
 
A lack of belief is not an excuse, because God gives faith to those who what to believe.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I will believe when I am convinced, no one gets to choose their beliefs, we are either convinced or we are not based on the evidence we have. We can believe for good or bad reasons but we cannot choose what we believe. I believed for 15 years but realized that me reasons for belief were bad and became unconvinced.
 
no one gets to choose their beliefs,
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top