Why Naturalistic Atheists Can’t Account for Morality

Here are a series of stupid atheist assumptions I’ve heard as to how morality can be accounted for, along with my rebuttals: (There are more to come)

1. “Majorities determine what is right and wrong.”

Rebuttal:

a. This assumes that majority opinion, or popular consensus, determines morality, yet just begs the question because we then need to know by what standard majorities get to determine anything. And then we need to show that that standard is correct. Once we know that standard is correct, then we can say that majorities determine morality and thus be sure that all moral claims made by majorities are correct every time.

More On The Laws of Logic and John 1:1

“Either the laws of logic are separate from God,

or

the laws of logic were created by God.”

Just as John 1:1 says that “and God was the Logos”, thus what God is the Logos is (speaking of the Logos’ nature), so I believe that the laws of logic are neither divine axioms (just as the Logos is not the Father), nor are the laws of logic created by God (just as the Logos is not “a god”).

This is extremely profound!!! This philosophical issue which has perplexed countless people for centuries is answered in John 1:1. The very arguments which atheists, Clarkians, and others use to try and say that it must be either/or when accounting for the laws of logic, have left out the only actual possibility: they are part of God’s very own nature. This is not just something the Christian apologist says but can point to from Scripture itself!

Naturalism Isn’t Natural… It’s Bias

Some have said, “you can’t just say God did everything. There’s no explanation in that.” OK. let’s just say “nature” does everything. Now we’ve come to some “superior” explanation! Sarcasm aside, saying God is the cause of all phenomenon does not preclude a scientific understanding of that phenomenon! Let’s have a scientific understanding of everything. But in the end, are we going to attribute the cause to “nature” or God? Which is our God, “nature” or God?

On top of that, so many so called “scientists” marry science to Naturalism. More specifically, they limit their scientific hypothesis’ to only natural explanations! Why they do this, I don’t know! Maybe it’s because they hate God. Just my hypothesis.

The funny thing is that no one even knows what the “natural” ultimately is!!! Not even Naturalists! Not even they can tell you what the fundamental substance is that everything is made up of. “Well everything is just atoms and electromagnetism at its bare core.” OK… that is until we begin to discover what that is made up of, and then what that is made up of, and so forth, an so forth, and on and on and on… What is “the natural”? Yet “scientists”, Evolutionists, and Naturalists throw this word around as though it were actually a solidified thing.

I can use the same line of reasoning as the Naturalist and say “God is a Naturalist”. Meaning, it’s perfectly natural for God to create, uphold, and allow all that is. This in no way, shape, or form negates scientific explanations. It only posits God as our ultimate reality, rather then whatever is believed to be “natural”. The supernatural is more natural than Naturalism!

Chronological Snobbery and The Flying Spaghetti Monster

C.S. Lewis and Owen Barfield coined the term “chronological snobbery”. What is it? It is a logical fallacy. You know, like a straw man argument which falsely represents your opponents viewpoint, or an ad-hominem argument which attacks your opponent while you ignore their argument all together. Chronological snobbery is also a logical fallacy.

However, this fallacy implies that just because we now know the world is round, have identified a few laws of physics, and have microwaves and refrigerators, doesn’t mean we are more intellectually advanced than those before our time!

My Dialogue With An Atheist

Here is a discussion I had with an atheist over the internet. I wanted to post this for a few reasons. First, I would like for all Christians out there to pray for this atheist to come to know Jesus Christ as his Savior, Lord, and friend. His name is Eric.

Secondly, I would like Christians and Atheists to read this. For Atheists I hope this raises some good discussions. For Christians, I hope this might crystallize your faith and give you some apologetic substance.

Lastly, I want to demonstrate a bit of how everyone assumes the Lord Jesus Christ’s existence. Especially when arguing against His existence. Within the word “atheist” we find the phrase “a theist”. One may claim to be an atheist but is always a theist beyond the claim. Look for this as you read the dialogue.

Remember, our apologetics are not the gospel, only a tool unto the gospel. Only the gospel that shows us how holy and perfect God is, thus how unholy and imperfect we are, will lead us to Christ our only hope. Only at the cross will God’s infinite love cover our infinite debt. That is, for those who believe and turn to Jesus Christ.

Me: If you don’t mind me asking, why don’t you believe in life after death?

Atheist: its no problem at all, It just never really made sense to me that you live .. die and the only proof that it exists is that someone said that it does.