header photo

 Scientific Anarchism 

the systematic elimination of the state

The Incoherence Of Atheism

The Incoherency Of Atheism

A Refutaion Of Atheism Part One

Abstract: Atheism cannot be communicated intelligibly. Its premise is inherently inconsistent. Denial of God is invalid, existentially impossible, and idiosyncratic and scientifically unacceptable.

Atheists reject all evidence for God they claim all they do is ask Christians prove their claims. Superficially this appears nothing less than reasonable and nothing more than a dispassionate request for more than empty assertions.

This essay will nevertheless demonstrate there is no foundation on which atheism can claim existential or logical validity. It does not matter that they went from defining Atheism as a rejection of all God-claims to being simply a desire to see the claim demonstrated.

The entire foundation of the atheist position lacks credibility. If God is the Creator of all things and exists solely in this state and condition demanding proof of His existence in a way that expects Christians to prove God is a physical object existing within time and space is simply a contrived and dishonest pretence at being impartial. The failure to prove God exists is not a failure of evidence but a lack of integrity on the part of atheists.

Atheism an ideology not a valid existential position. This issue is not that non-existence is unprovable. That was never the issue, or the position taken by serious theologians. The inability to prove God exists to those whose initial position is that there is no valid evidence is not tantamount to there being no evidence. It is not unusual for one camp to be unable to convince those of another position. This does not mean either side has no evidence supporting their position.

When we get to the point that we accept as true only those ideas no one can dispute generally then and only then ought Atheists to impose this level of expectation on those offering proofs of God.

There is no theory or idea that is not disputed or disputable. In fact, it is a common understanding that the best science can do is increase the probability an idea is true. Nothing is ever proved, and everything is open for discussion.

The problem Christians face is that atheists are not asking for evidence, they ask for evidence of a certain quality. The preconditions set by atheists means that to prove His existence requires us to prove God exists as a physical object within time and space. The inability to prove God Exists as a physical object is not a failure of evidence it is a failure of information. Atheists may as well ask for proof fish exist but only accepting evidence that can be found in a boreal forest.

This makes atheist poor scientists because a crucial aspect of being a scientist is being able to design the experiment to suit the evidence sought.

God does not exist within time and space so any test that seeks to prove He is temporally and spatially contained will result in a false negative.

Can empiricism even define truth? Is all truth contained within the limits of empirical verification or are their truths existing outside of the boundaries of empiricism? The Verifiability Principle says us that all truth must be verifiable by empirical means. This is a false statement because it cannot be empirically verified. Verification requires the use of experimental science. However, no experiment can substantiate the assertion. The verification principle remains experimentally unverified.

But haven’t atheists once more missed the point? We can only verify what we have given meaning to. That which is not defined or describe cannot be verified. Verification applies to confirming what we have made conceptually solid. If the idea remains conceptually vacant we cannot then verify its existence in objective reality. Logically we can determine A+B=C.  The equation is true but meaningless until the factors are identified. The tautology is actually a model of a simple scientific experiment. Once we have defined each term we can then ascertain if the equivalence holds good.

If the human mind did not give the elements meaning and attach significance to the information we could double the amount of empirical data, we had and we would still have no knowledge. We need to categorize and organize our information to make it useful. It is the human mind that turns observation into information.

Atheism is an assumption God does not exist. Atheism is an assertion that howsoever one defines god the idea remains irrelevant. It is as we know an assumption impossible to substantiate. One cannot prove God is irrelevant. Its only irrelevant to the degree we do not utilize it. Red is a concept irrelevant to a blind man, but others have use for it.

Atheists will claim their rejection of all God claims is typologically the same as denying the claims of children who say Santa exists. Because we understand Santa does not exist the claim that rejecting God is the same as rejecting Santa suggests Christians are more gullible than small children. Yet, there is a very distinct and real difference. We all know who Santa is and we all understand that his non-existence is actually a part of who he is. There is no incoherency in the denial of Santa’s existence.

This is why we educate children about the real nature of Santa without compromising the original sense of who he is. Children who know the present comes from their parent can still enjoy the mythology of Santa; which is why his imagery remains such a big part of Christmas.

When atheists say God does not exist what they mean to say is that the concept they know of as God is irrelevant. Since His existence is irrelevant the possibility He exists is moot. If He exists He does not exist in a form that generates consequences. An atheist thinks stepping off a high building proves gravity exists and that not believing in gravity has consequences. They do not see this same direct correlation of cause and effect when it comes to dealing with God. 

Atheists assume gravity exists and so their actions tend to confirm the assumption, but on the other hand they are certain God does not exist, so they interpret what they experience as confirming what they expect to be the case. Atheism suffers from the same confirmation bias they attribute to Christians.

The position concerning the irrelevance of God is based primarily on the assumption that science can be done just fine without God. The point made here is that if truth can be discovered independently of God then scientifically speaking belief in God is irrelevant. There are no consequences for disbelief from the scientific standpoint. Even if the claim truth must be established by empiricism cannot be empirically proved if we can discover what appears to be true using empiricism then so far as the scientific endeavour is concerned belief in God is irrelevant and superfluous. Atheism is adopted when no consequences appear connected with the position one takes regarding the existence of God.

The assumption atheists make is that people can go through life as atheists with the same felicity and confidence as those with faith. But if we divide our test subjects into groups A and B and test them to see how one group diverges from the other what difference can we expect to find if the groups were formed using a random selection process? To understand the consequence of non-belief, atheism has to be compared to belief. If belief is not present in the test subjects, then one is ultimately only testing one atheist against another despite the groups being labelled A and B. In other words, if you do not know what faith is how do you compare the results of being an atheist to the result of having faith?

This is not being pedantic. It poses a serious scientific problem when studying the impact of atheism on a population. The problem is not appreciated by either atheist or Christian researchers. Everyone who labels themselves a Christian or believer think they believe and count themselves a believer. Believers identify as non-atheist. But solving the question of if faith matters or not comes down to identifying who God is. If we do not ensure the believer has accepted God because we have no idea who or what God is, how can we know if the disbeliever has rejected God and not some phantom or strawman god that no one believes in or that the so-called believer does not believe in a false god?

In other words, how do we know we can do good science without reference to God without clear definitions of the terms we are using and a way to quantify the results?

Atheists have demanded God kill them to prove He exists. This is an informal experiment done by atheists as much for its shock value as for a love of truth. Such tests prove God does not react as atheists think He ought and that God does not permit human beings to set the parameters of his existence. It only proves if God exists He does not act in the way atheists assumes. However, it still does not prove there are no consequences for disbelief. All atheists prove conclusively is that curses are not a significant factor in determining God’s behavior. We cannot predict Gods behavior based on our own actions as the causative element.

If God exists, then the fundamental assumption is that the reverse statement is not true. The result of believing in a lie is that one must experience the consequences of accepting a lie. If reality is what is true, and reality corresponds to the truth then a lie cannot be coherent with the truth or with reality. What is important is what makes sense more than what we assume to be the case.

It is more likely that if God did not kill the atheist for cursing him that the speaker does not know God. Nothing in the bible tells us a person can tell God to kill him and expect this to happen. In fact, the bible says God is not impacted by what we do good or bad. Curses are not a significant factor in determining God’s behavior. The experiment then can do nothing but produce a false negative.

If God is not a vending machine we can expect to respond precisely as we tell Him when it comes to good things he is not a kind of suicide by god creature either, who kills upon request.

Think of it in this way, if God is truth and truth coherent responding to an atheist in the way atheist demand would not be consistent with who God is.  If God is love acting as an atheist demands would serve to prove God, as a God of love, does not exist. God killing people upon requires proves God is not the God he says he is. This might please an atheist, but it would prove God false and God is not false.

Do we believe a parent who does whatever his or her child demands expresses love?

This illustrate the problem atheists have. The claims of atheists are inherently incoherent. They cannot make an articulate comment about God. They claim there is no God, but to say anymore than this renders them incoherent. This is why they will not debate the issue and if pressed will become angry and abusive.

To make any claim requires a meaningful concept be communicated. One cannot make an articulate statement using meaningless concepts. To make a claim using meaningless terms makes the statement unintelligible. If an atheist said, gravity does not exist, we would know intellectually what was being said but it would not be a statement that contained information because the claim gravity does not exist is not a statement that can be understood. Mentally we cannot conceive of a reality in which gravity did not exist. No one can understand what it means to have a reality devoid of gravity so though the sentence is understood grammatically it is not really meaningful. Thus, statements that make grammatical sense can be said as in; gravity does not exist, but the statement is simply incoherent so far as its conveyance of information.

Atheists claim they exist. Is there any method by which their existence can be confirmed? They make a claim but the one making the claim must provide the evidence that supports the claim.

If there is no empirical way to confirm the existence of an atheist, beyond our capacity to doubt, it is unreasonable to expect Christians to provide evidence when such evidence can simply be rejected. There is no onus on atheists to accept even the second coming as evidence of God.  

To claim God does not exist is to say implicitly that a coherent truth exists independent of God. If the only possibility of a coherent world view requires we accept the existence of God then the atheist position is of necessity, incoherent. To prove atheism incoherent, we do not have to prove God exists, we only have to prove atheism contradicts itself.

If God did not exist there would be no absolute parameters of truth. We say reality exists but ultimately there is no reality without God. If truth is based on reality and there can only be one truth then our understanding of reality has to make sense, it has to be internally consistent. To deny God is to deny the only possible foundation for a coherent universe.

Reality can only be a mental construct composed of information. We cannot know anything else. Some may assert a physical reality is confirmed to exist by independent observation by independent observers, but racists independently confirm for other racists that racial prejudice is valid.

If truth was a matter of confirmation, then a referendum is all that is needed to ascertain truth. We have already demonstrated that empiricism cannot verify all truth. We may say empiricism defines truth but the claim that all truth is or ought to be verified by empirical means is incoherent.

This leaves us with the irrefutable fact that if truth is to be verified by empirical means truth is not all of one thing because all truth cannot be verified empirically.

To rely on mechanical devices to ascertain truth in the way empiricists do hardly solves anything and severely limits what can be discovered because of the limitations that are built into mechanical devices. Mathematics ensures coherence within the parameters of the theorem and its discoveries can be linked and incorporated into a greater coherence, but the truth of mathematics is often unrelated to anything real. Yet, in the final analysis all that matters is the level of coherency established. There is no external measure of truth, there is no outside, that is objective measure of truth.

This ought to be obvious. We define truth. Truth is a concept. Apart from human beings there is no truth because we are the only creatures that define what truth is and what the concept of truth relates to.

When atheist ask which God we believe in, tell them we believe in the God that is coherent with the truth for God is truth and all that is true is coherent with God. God created coherence.

God created this world in such a way that if you want coherence one has to believe in God.

Which brings us to Creation. The incoherent atheist position is that matter, energy space and time exist as the totality of all things. By this they mean the universe contains all things and the universe is composed of physical elements. Prove this if you can.

Energy is measured in work done or the amount of force that can be exerted on some body at rest. Force or energy cannot be seen directly. When we see a body at rest disturbed we say a force was exerted upon it. This does not make force real. Force is a concept used to describe certain observations.

We may ridicule the ancients who thought spirits or gods moved the wind and caused fires to burn but are we really that more knowledgeable because we call what moves a ball force rather than spirit?

What is the physical world? We have no knowledge of it. If we are physical beings, then what is mind? If spirits do not move objects, then what it that makes our minds work?

Our brain receives electrical signals from our senses and this is supposed to be a representation of a physical world?  The physical world is nothing but a concept. Everything we believe is conceptual. There is nothing to measure the truth of our concepts against.

God created man for a reason and the universe for man. If God was creating a mechanical device the existence of human beings as a machine would be incoherent. We would not fit in with whom God is or how He acts. We have to understand God to understand the universe and our place in it.

God is not a watch maker nor is he a mathematician. He is for want of a better word, a communicator, a teacher, an instructor. God is Truth and communicates truth as He communicates His nature to us.

To communicate one needs an origination but also a message and a receiver. The nature of truth requires information. If we are creating information the receiver must be able to interpret, decipher and comprehend the message.

Without God what need is there for information and without God where does information come from and why would we be able to comprehend information when there is no originating being or source?

Information has no independent existence. Information does not define itself. Information is simply a configuration of symbols if no meaning is given the signs used.

Atheists say there is no God meaning there is a reality sans God. This implies reality without God is more coherent than reality with God? Or, in another way, atheism suggests that putting the idea of God into the mechanistic universe of atheism messes up the works. They are right. God does not fit in a materialistic universe, but the materialistic conception of the universe is incoherent.

The idea of a mechanistic universe seemed to make sense but has proven incoherent. The inability to reconcile the idea of God with a mechanistic universe has led atheists to their conclusion God does not exist but this conclusion has not led to better understanding. Indeed, the mechanistic view of reality is fast being eroded by physics and made redundant. The idea of a material reality exists only because the alternative does not correlate well with atheism.

The issue with atheism is not simply about which flavor of reality they prefer. If truth is of all one piece then to reject the centerpiece, the cornerstone, is to have reality itself unravel. But atheists are of the opinion they can build a believable world view without considering God. Perhaps but what do they say? They say atheism is simply the rejection of God. They explain atheists come in all flavours and varieties. The only thing that unites atheists is their rejection of God. If nothing unites them then they do not have a shared or common reality. If God was a false proposition, ought not a cohesive world view emerge from giving up the world view of Christianity?

Rejecting God is rejecting the lynch-pin that holds the Christian world view together, surely rejecting the link that holds our reality together ought to do more than create a hole.

Descartes was the first to encounter the same conceptual brick wall that befuddles atheists. It is impossible to reconcile the material world with the spiritual. Descartes tried he created a perverse dichotomy that satisfied no one and the issue remains unresolved. Phenomenologists followed the implications of a two-substance universe to their logical conclusion. The conclusion was that if the world is material then it is absurd. It was as if embracing absurdity was a way to counter the very absurdity one had embraced.

Overcoming this absurd conclusion and finding meaning in life is an issue dealt with elsewhere and will not be gone into here. See my Book Human Rights Versus Legal Rights for a fuller treatment.

The less philosophical abandoned God altogether and just assumed materialism. The more thoughtful became empiricists and logical positivists. The failure of Descartes to convince anyone God had to exist led to a more determined statement that God was as good as dead. But if the use and usefulness of God was dead where was the greater truth that emerged or ought to have emerged from the rejection of such a central fallacy? When a false idea is put to rest a better one emerges, normally. Atheists testify they gained no coherence from rejecting God and in fact lost the coherence Christian theology gave them.

If we put a dozen atheists on an island they would not only realize nothing unites them but there is a lot that drives them apart. Each would have a personal ethics, but their ethics would have nothing in common with the ethics of his fellow atheists. They would not share any ideas on how the economy ought to work, how society ought to be arranged, or who ought to rule. This can be shrugged off as atheists freeing their minds from the slavery of belief in God, but it means more. If they were stranded without chance of extraction they would have to come to a resolution as to the reality they would subscribe to.

Christians already share a reality. Christians in the same situation would have a great deal in common and a solid foundation on which to build a community, even were they from different denominations. The differences that divide are often of little practical significance.

Once a person has liberated himself from the boundaries of faith what possibilities confront him, what wide open vista greets him or her as he steps outside of the confines of Christian faith? The possibilities are actually far more limited than one might suppose. As humans we have only two fundamental approaches in dealing with life, we can live by faith or by law. This is the truth given in the bible and it holds good for all times and all places.

When someone rejects faith in Jesus they have only one place to go, a reliance on the law and in the case of an atheist reliance on secular law which does not even have the backing of Divine retribution. It is this fact that explains why atheists have nothing in common when they reject Christ. Laws are created by human minds. Atheists have to determine what law they will live under before they can attain to any common cause.

We already know humans cannot follow law honestly and most given the opportunity will circumvent it. So what sort of foundation has the atheist on which to build a reality or even a stable society?

The law says Thou Shalt Not Kill but kill we must though we can refrain from this to varying degrees. How do atheists solve this simple dilemma no group of secular persons has solved to date?

A community must outlaw murder. It has no choice but having outlawed murder it has to establish all of the exceptions to the rule, because while murder must be outlawed no law can ever be made absolute.

Lines must be drawn but this lines never have any objective reality. One does not find boarders or legal boundaries in nature. These things are entirely human made. So, why do they have validity if reality is physical?

Who will run a community of atheists? Will it have a government, or will they attempt to create an anarchist society? If they opt for the anarchist model who will break trust first and rob or cheat or defraud his or her neighbor? It will happen; it is just a matter of time. In any group, there is always the person who wants to organize others or who thinks he or she has been cheated or given the short end of the stick and now wants to get even.

Everything the group or individual decides will be arbitrary. There are no objective guidelines to follow. All law is pulled out of thin air and is arbitrary.

Atheists say God is not needed because God is not natural but what is natural about human civilization?

If the group has the power to impose its will on the individual, to maintain order then the larger group will have the power to impose their will on smaller groups and a clique of the most powerful or the most ruthless will have the power to impose their will on the rest. Given any scarcity in any desired good there will be the temptation for the strongest and most ruthless to impose a claim to the lions share of the desired good.

Where is the objective reality in the never-ending threat of tyranny?

What strong group of persons will accept scarcity if they can impose their claim to what they want on a weaker majority?

But we do not need to note the absolute absence of objective factors in our social systems. It is sufficient to look at the claim atheists make. It fails the objectivity test.

Atheists say there is no God but this means one of two things, either there is a reality in which there is no God or there is no concept of God. If God is not a valid concept then the statement, there is no God is nonsense. The concept must exist, and it has to exist as a definable datum to even be negated. Unicorns do not exist but the concept does and we know what is meant when someone says that unicorns do not exist.

What atheists mean when they say there is no God is that a reality exists that contains no perceivable entity that matches the concept of God.

What reality is this then, in which there is no God? Is not reality also a conceptualization? If the choices are a reality created by God and a reality not created by God, then surely one or the other is a perverse idea and one or the other is a very fundamental and significant truth? Saying there is no God or asserting there is a God is not typologically the same as saying there is a Santa or there is no Santa.

The concept of idea of Santa does not necessitate a reality in which Santa must exist. Santa as an idea can be rejected without causing significant change to the accepted reality.

What other choice do we make that has the same significance and so much potential consequence? Believing in God may make one the object of scorn and ridicule but apart from the bafflement of atheists what other downside is there to belief?

On the other hand, one must ask what atheists gain by denying God? The most advanced and successful scientists in the world are Christian. The most well-adjusted people in the world are Christian. The most successful nations in the world are Christian or have historic roots in the faith. Of course, the date is skewed somewhat by the imprecision of the definition of what makes a person or a society Christian. But the correlation between Christianity and personal and social success is close enough to prove atheists do not gain anything by denying Christ.

But they are convinced he does not exist. But we ask again, what kind of reality is it that is said to exist and in which there is no God? If there is a reality without God, it must be a reality we can apprehend. One cannot rationally say that the reality one is in is not of one part. Nor assert there is a Platonic reality that is perfect and coherent and has no God but which no one can perceive.

Atheist say the world is material, we have noted physics has increasingly thrown doubt on that. So what world is this that has no God? Atheists say in their world God is not needed. But if this is so why does not everything become understandable when the existence of God is rejected? Does rejecting God enable us to understand mind, love, or the complexity and capabilities of humans? What real advantage is there to positing a world without God?

Think of ten atheists on an island? What is their common reality? They agree there is no God. This does not help them to divide the island into political jurisdictions? It does not give them information on how to create a workable economy. What if there is one source of drinking water on the island? How does being an atheist help them decide how to administrate the stewardship of their sole source of potable water? They do not have a shared faith to bring them together and help them settle their differences so how has atheism helped them?

In setting up their island home no doubt they will agree that it is not legal to murder, but what do they mean by this? Is there a consensus on how to define murder or illegal death? The only thing they have in common is that they are atheists. There is no God in their reality and so no higher authority to appeal to. Some may want to right to kill those who intrude on their private property. Other atheists may wish to ban all killing even the killing of animals. How do they mediate disputes and settle differences? If there is a legal system in place, then they inherit a system for ordering their activities, but a group of atheists stranded with no social institutions in place have no clear way of mediating disputes other than a resort to physical force.

If it is true that murder is both ok and forbidden and that only people with property should vote and everyone should have the right to vote, and a countless number of other diametrically opposed viewpoints make up reality how is it true to say reality is singularly without God? Why is the consensus on the God question more meaningful than their lack of consensus on everything else?

Why is it so easy for atheists to agree there is no God yet be unable to agree on anything else? What is there about the concept of God that makes it expendable in the eyes of atheists whereas the idea of murder is a topic of endless debate.

But let’s say atheists create a reasonably stable society, they write a law that is illegal to murder except in defence of life, and one’s dog. Many other laws are also put into force and the island becomes like our own society a legislative democracy.

The reality they now live in is defined by law. But law never satisfies all contingencies, sometimes following the law is unwise.  If you ask a resident if God exists they will say no, if you ask is it ok to speed many will say no and many others will say yes if you do not get caught and others will say it depends on if it is a life or death emergency or not.

Everyone agrees there is no God on the island, but this consensus has no impact on the community. Why is their reality real when the only thing it contains common to all is a rejection of God? Is reality not supposed to be coherent, that is all of one piece? How can it be good in one reality to kill interlopers and in the same reality not right to kill even animals regardless of the provocation?

To, see the point more clearly, imagine the stranded persons being Christians. As Christians they share a common moral code and code of conduct. They need far fewer laws and police simply because they are in agreement about how they ought to live. They do not even enact a law against murder because none would consider taking a life and more importantly none of them would put another in a situation in which the person felt their life threatened.

Imagine a spirit of evil turns these Christians into atheists. Some reject God but continue to live a godly life, others engage in debauchery and satanic rituals.

Previous to this the group believed God existed and they lived a fairly coherent life. As atheists that coherence is gone and morally members take off in different directions. The point being here that according to theory rejecting God ought to produce good results. What happens is that the group rejects God and they lose the harmonizing factor that a shared believe provides.

When we stop believing in Santa or unicorns there is a small but real advantage, the same goes for not believing in aliens. Had NASA not believed in aliens we could have saved untold billions of dollars. The key to the atheist benefit is supposed to be the empirical advantage but this is not visible. Truth cannot be confirmed by empiricism nor is empirical procedure prevented by belief.

But we come back to the claim by atheists that there is no proof of God. By this they mean empirical proof. Even here when an atheist says there is no empirical evidence for God they mean there is no material evidence of God. Is there empirical evidence the material world exists as atheist’s claim? In the empirical world, so far as atheists would have it, all evidence is physical all tests are designed to give confirmation of a physical cause and everything has to have a material basis. Atheists say they cannot see or see any manifestation of God. They mean they cannot prove God exists in time and space.

We knew that already.

The empiricists say he has the advantage over Christians because he is able to fashion material answers to scientific questions. But this is to put the cart before the horse. Where is the empirical evidence that materialism provides answers closer to the truth or consistent with the truth? All an atheist does is say there is no God so as to validate answers based on the premise that there is no God basically creating confirmation bias. But the goal is to discover the truth regardless of where it leads of the conclusion it forces upon us.

When an atheist says God does not exist he is using language and conveying information about his particular (read personal) reality. He is saying his material-based reality cannot contain God, thus he admits God is not material and cannot be in or be contained in a material universe. So, he can say there is no evidence for God, but he means the material universe as he understands it does not encapsulate the concept of God. What he is saying in effect is that the concept God (as he understands it) is not consistent with the concept of a material universe.

But this comes down to the question of does God exist or does the material universe exist. We know they are not compatible, but which exists, and which does not?

But the question becomes moot. We have already ascertained the concept of a material universe is not coherent and not supported by the latest empirical data. The idea of a universe composed of independent physical elements was decaying the moment it was introduced. It never stabilized into a usable idea but was constantly under revision and correction a good indication the original idea was not solid.

No one, no Christian at least, argues that God is part of the material universe, so the atheist is incoherently arguing that God does not exist because God as conceived or understood by Christians is not part of the material universe as understood by atheists. But this is agreement posed as disagreement. No one believes God is a material entity or part of any material universe, the idea is bizarre to say the least.

Both atheist and Christian know God is not part of the universe of time, space and mass to perhaps the argument about God’s Existence is a deflection?

The argument as to the existence of God is ultimately a red herring, a diversion from the real issue and that is does the material world even exist?

There is an irresolvable inconsistency in the atheist’s universe. They claim the material universe exists, but the very science used to prove this suggests otherwise, they claim God does not exist based on the impossibility of God being contained in time and space, but their rebuttal is a strawman because no one says God is in time and space. Atheists are claiming God does not exist because he is not part of a reality that does not exist and has been proved to be improbable if not impossible.

The claim that God does not exist is made because the atheist rejects what he says are supernatural agents. His position is that only natural agents and forces can exist. By natural agents he or she means agents and forces connected to the natural that is physical world; the world that only exists in the minds and conceptualizations of atheists.

This incongruity is so intense that when atheists seek proof of God what they look for is evidence of material-based God. When they disprove God, or say they do, they disprove a supernatural agent exists within the time/space continuum. Is it necessary to point out that if they had found God within the parameters of their search pattern it would have been really, really weird?

The best we can say is that atheists have proved beyond argument that the idea of God is not consistent with the way they conceive of reality. Indeed, they cannot conceive of God in a way that would fit in with their conceptualization of existence. At best they could create a graven image or idolize a thing composed of flesh and blood but there is no way God can be reconciled with the atheist’s world view.

If the claim is that a supernatural agent cannot exist in an environment in which supernatural agents are excluded is a significant position to take, then atheists have achieved a victory, but it seems to the casual eye all they have stated is the obvious without proving anything of significance. What is a supernatural agent in a reality where the natural is non-existent?

However, atheists do not leave the argument there but move on to demand that if a supernatural agent can exist then its existence must be demonstrated to be possible within the space/time continuum In effect they put conditions on the proof based on what they have already ensured is a logical impossibility. This is incoherence at its finest. Ought not atheists demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the physical world they believe in, exists before asking for proof that elements of the Christian world-view be proved to be part of their configuration?

Why do they not ask a Christian to demonstrate supernatural agents are possible within the supernatural realm?

Is it not possible that God does not fit into their configuration because their conceptualization is invalid?

The concept of God does not allow God to exist within time and space. The concept of a material God is jarring and brings up images of carven idols. Are atheists asking Christians to prove God is a graven image, it seems to be what they are trying to do.

Atheists will say they are not saying the concept of God does not exist. They say they do not belief there is any proof that a reality identical to God does not exist. But what does it mean to say a non-conceptual God does not exist? If reality is not composed of concepts, then what are we thinking of when we think about reality? When it is said, God does not exist, what is being said?

We could say iron bars does not exist. We might say there is solid evidence for the existence of iron bars but how solid is this evidence, really? The ideas of iron, and bars are simply concepts. Reality itself is a concept. All our minds can deal with are concepts. There is no actual iron bar in our minds and if not in what reality does this iron bar exist?

Atheists think saying God does not exist is typologically the same as saying Santa does not exist? The sentence structure is the same but conceptually there is a distinction. No one bats an eye when Zeus is said not to exist. People would be more prone to think one is irrational for saying Zeus exists than they would if one says God Exists despite both being labelled gods?

The sentences may seem the same but what is a sentence? How can we have nouns and verbs and adjectives without information? Does not the structure exist to enable understanding? How is there understanding without a source of meaning, a means of transmission and an intelligent and therefore conscious recipient?

It is not the structure of the sentence that is crucial it is the concepts themselves. The concept of God is infinitely different from the concept of Zeus or Santa.

If we say God Created the universe then we are saying there is such a thing as a universe that God created, or are we? What do we mean by ‘such a thing’ in this context? We are saying there is a reality God created. By implication God is a reality in his own right and He did not create himself as creation implies a time and space event.

Saying God does not exist is primarily a twisted way to recognize God does not exist as a self-created part of the rest of Creation. But this is obvious, and no one disputes this.

We can talk about God because God is a concept that has coherence and the concept can be communicated. Concepts have an inner consistency; a concept is what a materialist would call an atom of understanding. Concepts serve as the building block of communication.

When an atheist says God does not exist they are trying to say the thing the concept God is based on or points to is not there. But all we know is our conceptualization of things. Atheists want to say there is a reality beyond our conception of it and this does not make sense. It does not conceptually cohere. If we cannot conceive of reality we cannot be aware of it, if we are aware of it we are aware of it in a conceptual form, as information in fact.

When it is said Santa does not exist it is not a claim there is a reality beyond our conception or conceptualization of reality. All we are saying is that the concept of Santa is a fable because it only exists as part of a fable. It is not inherently part of any reality. The story of Santa is a story because it does not cohere with our established truth, our history of being. No one demonizes Santa to prove he does not exist. We use Santa to explain an event we want to give greater meaning too (than is present in the reality of a parent buying their children gifts).

When atheists say there is no God they are trying to say there is no thing in the reality that exists that corresponds to the concept of God. However, they fail to prove there is a reality that corresponds to a reality that exists apart from our conceptualizations of it. Where is this reality that exists apart from our concepts of reality? How can anything exist beyond our conceptualization of it?

There is only our concepts and the information that we have.

This is the petard atheists fall upon. They want a dispassionate objective observer to whom they can relate to. They want a grand and majestic method of comparison to which they can weigh and measure truth. But they reject God and God is the only objective observer that could exist. In the end, all they have is their own opinion which they glorify as if they were god. Atheism is secular humanism and once the fancy rhetoric is stripped away secular humanism is all about the glorification of the individual.

When God is dismissed all that is left is personal opinion. Atheists may think reality is on a kind of scale in which a statement can be put and found wanting or adjudicated. They want a measure of truth but the only measure they have is their emotional state, their triggers. Atheists reject God as he cannot be fitted into this schema of theirs in which they are the final arbiter of Good and Evil.

But where is reality? What is matter, energy space and time but the concepts which we use to talk about them and think about them? What are they but the concepts we use by which their nature is communicated from one person to the other? Where does one find time but in relation to the concepts which are used to describe it? We say time is the passage of events but what is this but a statement trying to convey to others how we think of time, how we conceptualize it? Reality is a communication, what is real is what we can communicate and how real something is, is dependent on how able the concept can be conveyed. Reality is a body of knowledge shared. That is all it is. We seek truth by seeking to understand the knowledge we were given, we do this by trying to fashion concepts that reflect the information.

The only truth we know, and the only way reality can be measured is by the clarity of the concept in relation to all others. When an idea jars with others it is either going to have to be redefined or everything else redefined to make the entire understanding consistent with itself.

 To say God does not exist is not the same as saying Santa does not exist. The concept we have of reality and the concept we have of Santa are not coherent. There is no reality in which Santa is present. As a concept, he exists in a very special and artificial universe. There is however no universe in which God is not compatible to the elements, except in the limited and isolated universe atheists create.

Santa makes sense to a child because they wake up in the morning and see gifts that had to come from somewhere and their parents say they came from Santa. But parents know where the gifts came from and they know where the concept of Santa came from and what the concept really stands for and how it fits in with all the other truths they know.

What is the material world but a concept? It has parameters and elements and one aspect of the atheist reality is that there is no room for God. This only tells us that the concept of God atheists has, and their concept of reality are not compatible. But if our concepts are simply concepting and nothing more why does reality have such unyielding persistence?

One of the basic ideas of the material universe is that it cannot be willfully altered by human or supernatural influences. Thus, an atheist will challenge God to prove Himself by striking him down dead for cursing him. Atheists do not realize this would not be of much help as people die suddenly all the time. Once an atheist is dead the proof would not help him much.

All atheists prove is that their idea of God is not consistent with any God that exists. The Christian God does not respond to human demands nor to human triggering events. So, proving God does not respond as mankind wants or predicts is not evidence of anything other than God is not governed by human wills.

Indeed, it is fair to say the atheist is trying to prove humans can alter reality and impact the supernatural realm by their speech and actions. If there is a reality and it is not amenable to subjective alteration (not such a strong claim in the light of the new physics as it once was) then there is a physical reality. But what do we even mean by this?

When you read this paragraph, it carries a meaning. The components are standard words and letters and rules of grammar. All the components are subject to rearrangement, but the meaning of the sentence, the communication, is not. The physical medium of the language is not what is important, what is important is the message. The medium is not important only the information.

God has communicated a message to us, it is information that we see or experience as reality. We can change some things and alter the bits and pieces by which the information is conveyed to us but we cannot alter the message itself that is we can garble the message, but we cannot create a new message in place of the information given us.

When atheists deny God, they are not referencing a new or distinct reality, they are messing up the truth of the message they were heirs to. They cannot point to an objective reality independent of our concept of it any more than they can point to a God independent of our conception of Him. Now they can deny the concept of God has validity but ultimately, they cannot deny that the concept, the information we have about God, exists. For if no information existed about God the information could not be rejected by them.

The question then is if this information is like the information we have about Santa? The concept of Santa has no use except to children and the parents who do not want the kids knowing it was them who provided the gifts. Taking out Santa from reality does not impact reality and leaves no visible logical holes. Santa was never part of reality except as a mythological figure substituting for the child’s parents.

The same goes for the rejection of all the various gods and myths. They can be rejected without consequence or problem. When it comes to the Christian God as revealed in Scripture we notice rejection comes with serious repercussions.

We can deny lies and reject liars without serious problems and in fact we expect to be benefitted. We cannot reject the truth without risking dire consequences.

We have noted that rejecting God leaves a gaping hole in the fabric of our lives. We need a moral foundation or First Principle by which our choices and beliefs can be evaluated. People often do not understand the logical necessity of God. As one thinker said: ‘If God did not exist we would have to invent him’. In fact, this is what atheists do. They do not reject God they transform themselves into god.

Atheists see is an all powerful being who demands obedience but do not see him as a kind of moral gravity or center of the universe. When we reject Him, we end up floating in a moral universe in which direction is not possible. Atheists rejection of a tyrant God is a legitimization of their desire to be god. God is only viewed as a tyrant because he stands in between the atheist and his desire to be god.

The boast that nothing unites atheist’s, but their rejection of God is in fact a testament to their amorality and hopelessness. Once God is rejected all they have left is their emotional reaction to others give them a sense of having a moral compass.

Atheists will promote some First Principle like freedom or democracy or property rights to give themselves and their universe some order. Atheists see freedom as a right. They see God as a restraint on their freedom.

When Atheists reject God, this is a choice. In the atheist mind, what he or she gains is freedom. But it is a freedom without any structure, we have already noted that the rejection of God does not actually produce anything of substance.

This appears to confer upon the atheist a great advantage. Atheists are free of the what they call the stifling conventions of Christianity. But to what end?

God created reality and if He did this reality has to have only one possible configuration, the one in which it was formed. By rejecting the only way reality can be understood those who reject God lose the only way they can come to a common understanding.

Atheists gain freedom, but it is a moral freedom that is unbounded. It is a freedom without any compass other than the flesh. They gain a limitless freedom because they have entered a world of illusion, the world of subjectivity for want of a better word.

Without God what guides their actions other than the desires of their flesh and ego?

In our discussion of the island motif we realized 100 atheists picked at random will not have any common principle that would serve as the foundation of a new society. Atheism only exists on the strong foundation of Christianity. Now, an atheist will scorn this statement and declare Christianity is only a recent innovation and a limited belief system at that. The claim does not take into account all non-Christian cultures that have existed elsewhere in other times.

True in one sense. Christianity is a recent development, but it is based on the truths written in our hearts. The expression of these truths which we call Christianity is recent and local but the truths which Christianity expresses are eternal and universal. A group of Christians put in the same position as a group of atheists would create a coherent social structure with far fewer problems, not that there would not be problems because the church is not the best expression of Christian truth. But this is not the issue here.

The point is that other beliefs do not specifically deny God even if the god they believe in is not specifically the God Christians know. Without the stability of Christian principles atheism would devolve down into a chaos of competing demigods each thinking their own values important and being triggered at mention of any opposition.

We mentioned atheists laud their commitment to personal freedom as the great guiding principle of their life. Given a group of atheists how do they form a society based on mutual obligation when their first principle is personal moral freedom? Without the acceptance of some mutual obligation a social structure cannot be developed. Societies are based on trust not freedom. Risk has to be contained.

Let’s look at the situation again. We posit 100 atheists have landed on an island. On this island there is one source of fresh water. Atheists must determine how to administrate this scarce resource. There will be industrial, personal and agricultural demands on the water. I will not go into all the possible debate elements. A discussion with one hundred participants and three options is not going to be resolved by discussion and votes. At some point the group will have to resort to the imposition of force. The discussion will have to give way to a decision taken by a person in authority. How will such a person be chosen or will he assert his authority by means of his ability and willingness to exert ruthless power?

Atheists must resort to some process by which they can invalidate the very freedom they hold dear. Even the American Revolution concluded a Federal government would be needed. Even then the power of the Federal government had to be consolidated through a civil war. This was a Christian nation superficially, but it was not by any means a theocracy. Indeed, there are arguments that the Christian foundation was usurped by a satanic influence, but that is not the subject of this essay.

 Choices can only be made by individuals and a resource to be administrated needs someone in charge. A group approach can be implemented, and this will require the use of some form of democracy but in the end consensus is a long and difficult process and can often lead to a bitter and complete breakdown between different camps. At some point a choice needs to be made and this will invariably reflect one views even when subscribed to by a majority of opinion.

Then one man has to be the spokesperson and the physical expression of the position taken. The Supreme Court has a Chief Justice and its decisions are expressed by one appointee.

But what is freedom but the protection from consequences? How can one be free if one can be shot for what one does? How can one be free if one’s choices can lead to eternal hellfire? Is one free if one is lost? Who has more and fewer choices than a man lost in a forest? He can go anyway he chooses but then what kind of choice has he as to the direction in which he ought to go? An atheist can go anywhere and do anything he chooses but what significance is there in the choice he makes? An atheist can choose its gender but only because it has no signals by which it can figure out what its gender is. For atheists deciding gender is nothing more than guess work, a shot in the dark, a subjective hunch with nothing to either guide or hinder the choice.

Once sexual attributes are deemed irrelevant what is left to guide one in choosing a gender? It becomes a totally random and essentially meaningless ritual.

What distinguishes a human being more than our ability to make a choice? To be free is to be free of the conceptual definers that distinguish a choice. A man can choose to be a man he cannot choose to be woman. The concept of what a woman is precludes a man being a woman, but we still must choose. This is something an atheist cannot comprehend.

The Christian chooses to believe but he does have to choose to believe; atheism is really the default setting. Unless one takes the time to know who Christ is and determine the pros and cons of faith it is impossible to become a Christian, regardless of the caricatures of the process atheists provide themselves. Atheism has the choice but exists because of a refusal to make that choice. As they refuse to choose they lose the capacity to choose.

The capacity to choose defines what it means to be human. Atheists reject the need to choose. In the most fundamental of senses atheism is a reversion to childhood, and infantile denial of any necessity of choosing. What atheists want atheists want, but they refuse to give up anything to obtain what they want. This is the attitude of a child.

If an atheist will not choose God because they do not want to give up what they must be believe, then they cannot choose to reject God. What they do is choose to reject the need to choose. What they get is the child’s position of a continued non-belief even though they think they are making a rational choice.

Choices are determinations of value. To have a choice one must be able to determine value. Values are human inventions and conventions. To an atheist the idea or concept of God has zero or even minus zero value as they hate God. To choose to be male means choosing to value the idea of maleness over femaleness. But for many people the question becomes one of why choose one or the other, the atheist cannot compute the value of one in terms of the other because they have lost the capacity to value choice. Thus we end up with gender fluidity; the total incapacity to choose based on real characteristics.

If the atheist values freedom above everything else how do they reconcile freedom with the need for law? Do liberals see people as free if they value one set of values or features above other configurations? If the qualities of manhood are seen as more valuable to a man than those qualities associated with females, then is the man trapped in his own value system? If a man has a preference for being male is he is not obliged by what some might call his misogyny to be a man?  The problem with choices is that once one recognizes option A is of more worth than option B one is rationally and morally obliged to choose A. This is not freedom. At least not in the minds of liberals.

In the liberal world view we ought not to find ourselves with preferences, at least not ones that obligate us in anyway. Equality and freedom demand every option be an equal option. There is no fundamental right and wrong. Thus, gender is a choice without consequence and morality just a list of menu items. 

The problem is that we have all bought into this liberal ideology of moral relativism. We all respond to the imagery of freedom as provided by liberals, or perhaps it is better to say we have all bought into the imagery of freedom that is known of as liberalism. The idea of freedom as being the absence of restraint predates what we know of as liberalism.

Atheism is a sub-group of liberalism based on freedom but centered on freedom from God. But in the final analysis rejecting God is commensurate with saying one does not believe in reality. Not that atheists mean to say they do not believe in reality per se but they do believe in freedom and a belief in God interferes with freedom.

Atheists do not believe in a fixed or absolute reality, a reality which impinges on them in a moral and implacable way. They accept gravity exists and time and space, but reality is like a huge playroom to them. It has boundaries, but these boundaries are physical and external to them, the fun is in trying to break down these barriers.  Atheists do not try and play within them and do not see the game as trying to fulfill the spirit of the rules.

Atheists test boundaries trying to see how far they can go. What they do not understand it is the boundaries they accept that define them. Atheists see reality as physical and reject the supernatural and even subjective. Society is something to warp and twist until it breaks. But what they fail to understand is that humans are not individuals nor some mass. We are what we are in concert with others. The bible refers to the social unit as a church, basically it is what we see in secular terms as our social networks.

Atheists may or may not see a need to cooperate with others. They may or may not see a need for some sense of justice. When reality is a physical configuration a society is just a set of rules. The rules you have are unimportant. Rules are what people create to make their social relations go smoothly but they have no intrinsic value.

The best way to understand the atheist reality is a toy room. It is full of objects but nothing of any special value and with no fixed or necessary use. One is in the room to make use of what one sees in whatsoever way one wishes and to make up one’s rules as one feels a need. Anything that cannot be changed or modified as one chooses is a hindrance to the game and one’s freedom as a player.

However, we have seen that there is no physical reality as a kind of objective existence separate from the observer. There is no way to verify the existence of such a reality. All we see, feel and experience is our concepts. Our minds manipulate information and information is composed of symbols given meaning and order. Matter is just a concept and everything we do and see is conceptual. All of our attempts to prove the existence and nature of matter is simply us exploring the coherence of the concepts we have concerning matter.

Society is ultimately a set of shared concepts. Democracy is a concept that has certain parameters that we think helps society operate better. Atheists think that the concept of God is a deterrent to social harmony and our ability to reason. By denying God they think they have rejected something superfluous or extraneous along the lines of jettisoning the concept of ether, but what do they replace it with? They eliminate the one concept that serves to unite us. God, by definition, is superior to humans. He is also a being. By virtue of his existence as a superior being He can rightfully demand we submit to his rule. Atheists reject God but what do they replace Him with? Without God all that is left is the ego of men.

God is not a redundant idea. This is not to say a human cannot fabricate some rule or principle to live by but by what means does he or she legitimize it? If it is true that people can use faith to justify murder it is even more true to say that without God it is impossible not to see murder as just another choice equal to all others.

What is immoral about murder when without God there is no morality? It does not suffice to give me your opinion on killing others and call this opinion morality. The fact that atheists would do this, offer their opinion as a kind of morality, demonstrates how morally bankrupt atheism is.

A moral code has to be shown to represent a moral good and the only feasible way of doing this is by demonstrating a superior being is the source of this ruling.

Atheists demand freedom from the interpositions from God and the freedom to determine their own rules as regards morality but ultimately, atheists cannot just reject submission to God. Atheists end up rejecting all limitations on their own supreme individuality. When God is gone there are no barriers to the expansion of ego. In the final analysis, this is what the rejection of God is about.

But what is the individual part from society and what is society apart from its shared concepts? When atheists say there is no God they think they are saying there is no entity in reality, that corresponds to God.  Their rejection assumes there is a reality that exists in which God does not exist. But then why does this reality not emerge when God is rejected? Where is this reality, this new society, if you will, this new vision of truth?

Atheists reject their concept of God, but this is not the same as the concept that Christians accept when coming to Christ. The atheist rejection is of a concept created by them to be rejected. Their concept of God is simply an amalgamation of what they oppose. They give this bundle of negations the label ‘god’ but this list of dislikes has nothing to do with God.

What would science be like if a scientific theory could be rejected on the basis of a peevish dislike of the theory? Yes, an opponent can poke holes in an idea and provide objections to it but if the theory is to be rejected those opposed must provide a better alternative.

Just as they create a concept of themselves which is good and form a concept of good that is defined by who they imagine themselves to be so to do atheists form a concept of God out of what they oppose. This is why God says he is hated by those who reject Him.

We may dislike the rule of God, we may oppose some of the commands he puts on us but this does not make your preferences more valid.

If the suzerainty of God is not to your liking, then what have you but spiritual anarchy? If God is not in control, then no one is.

One does not reject those whom they love but the one we love is conceptualized as composed of favorable qualities. Christians see God as composed of all the things that we admire and praise, but atheists do not see this as part of God. Where Christians see love, compassion and forgiveness, atheists see hate, petty dogmatism and cruelty.

So, which is the real God? Which reality exists, and which does not? Is the question even meaningful?

How does one test for reality?

We have demonstrated that no matter how atheist may argue that reality is composed of matter, energy, space and time all they can prove to exist are the concepts, not the thing that is said to exist behind the concept. When we look for energy the only thing we can find is the concept. We see work being done and things happening, but the work and actions are just other concepts.

There is only one possible test for reality. It is also a test for rationality and sanity. It is called the test of coherency. If one’s ideas are not coherent they cannot be real or true by definition. If something exists it cannot also not exist. Reality is governed by the Law of the Excluded Middle. Reality and truth exist or do not. A concept either fits in with our other ideas and becomes something that can be communicated, or it does not.

Reality conforms to the law of logic because ultimately reality is information. Information can only make sense, or it is not information. Information is communication just as evidence is an interpretation of an observation. What is real is simply what can be communicated. Reality is shared information. If we cannot share the information, if we cannot communicate the concept or share the concept it ceases to be part of reality.

Reality is ultimately the amount of information we can share, humans are advanced simply because our systems of communication, our ability to form and articulate concepts is advanced.

But if all we have is information and the laws relating to information one of the most fundamental laws of information is that information needs an intelligent source of origination. Information has to be created; that is conceived or conceptualized. It cannot just appear. Information without an intelligence to comprehend it is an absurd idea and if the idea is absurd it cannot exist. If the idea is absurd it cannot exist as an idea and therefore cannot exist as a concept, cannot be communicated and cannot be part of reality.

Letters cannot make information unless they are ordered by an intelligence that seeks to communicate with another intelligence. If there is information in the atheist universe it had to come from an intelligence.

God is the Great Communicator. He gave us not just a reality but an understanding, a single way of comprehending the information we have. This we call reality. Like any communication it can only be understood fully in the way it was sent. The message cannot be comprehended without the originator because in the end the message is about He who originated it.

The atheists say the world is real, they rationalize what they see and think and say it makes sense, but can they communicate this understanding rationally? Reality is not about the individual’s subjective conception. We all have a personal reality, but this is not reality because without shared concept and a shared way of communicating what we see, think, hear and feel none of it is real.

A solution to the energy crises is not a solution so long as only one person knows it; or understands it or only knows a solution incapable of being communicated. The solution to be real must be communicated. To be communicated it has to be coherent. If the idea is not even consistent with itself how can one discuss it?  To be communicated it has to have the capacity to become information. The elements our of which it is composed have to be coherent, that is all the bits have to form information that is meaningful and intelligible by the hearer. A solution has to be an intelligible concept that can be turned into information by the originated and transferred to an intelligent listener or receiver.

God is intelligent and his communications to us is intelligible. What he tells us is coherent in that all of His reality is consistent with all known and knowable truths. Atheism is simply the rejection of an infinitely useful concept that produces absolute coherence.

Truth is a social construct. But it this is only so no individual idiosyncrasy can define reality. Reality is conceptual, and the concepts must be coherent but the measure of coherence is ultimately if that coherence can be shared as a communication. This creates the need for society and ultimately for social organization so that communication can be shared in an orderly and indeed coherent way.

The social organization God has formed is called a church. The church is said to be the body of believers, but the bible makes it clear that so far as the church in its earthly manifestation is concerned the church has structure.

The church is not all believers nor an individual but a social organization or social unit. A church is a body of believers associated with a political jurisdiction. The church is the manifestation of Christian stewardship over a given polity.

It is important to fully understand the concept of the church to fully understand what it is we are and what we ought to create. Without understanding this we cannot understand reality is God has defined it.

Reality comes down to can an atheist fully communicate his atheist reality or not? Atheists already confess there is no shared reality between atheists. They can assert there is no God or declare they see no evidence for God, and that is the totality of what is called atheism. Individual atheists will add this or that addendum to the basic statement, but these additions still remain the ramblings of an incoherent ideology and expression of a personal conception of reality which in the grand scheme of things is of no interest to any sane person.

Christians do not need to prove there is a God, we do not even need to prove the conception we have of reality with God is coherent, we only need demonstrate atheists are incoherent. If atheism is incoherent their reality is invalid and belief in God becomes the only other option. If the reality of atheists is contradictory, then it cannot be valid. If part of the inconsistent world view contains a rejection of God that is immaterial. A lie need not be disproved in all of its parts, it only needs to be shown to be untrue in some detail. True, we need to look at various conceptions of God and their implications to see what conception has the most information value but that is another issue.

If I say I do not believe in Santa and my reality has no need of Santa then I ought to be able to provide a coherent view of reality in which Santa is absent, and this reality must be shared or sharable with others who reject Santa. No adult says I do not believe in Santa, but I share no other belief or claims with anyone else who does not believe in Santa. All rejections of Santa are based on the coherent and shared claim that it is the parents who provide the gifts to their children.

All those who reject the existence of Zeus share the same narrative about how Zeus came to be, who he is in mythology and so on. The rejection of Zeus is a shared reality.

In fact anyone who said there was no Santa and held to any other belief than it is parents who provide the gifts would be thought more odd than the person who still thought it was Santa that provided the gifts. In keeping with the scientific method those parents who reject the claim that Santa is real do not just reject the claim they offer an alternative explanation for why kids get gifts at Christmas.

Atheists by saying there is no God mean there is no such concept as God that they share with others. no God. They admit there is no shared or shareable reality associated with the idea that there is no God. They say there is no God, but they cannot communicate what the outcome of this is because their ideas of God are idiosyncratic, unsociable and thus intrinsically incoherent. We all know and agree on who Santa is and when we reject Santa everyone agrees on what idea is being rejected and we all know what the alternative theory is, that replaces the Santa concept. When atheists deny God, they deny a God that no one believes in. The concept of God used by atheists to rationalize their denial is not a concept anyone uses but them.

Atheists may claim they reject all gods but until they can know all gods they cannot rationally reject them. The rejection is as incoherent as a person who rejects all medications without being aware of what might be covered by the concept.

Atheists claim they understand the world better without the conceptualization of God and yet they do not show any sign of understanding anything better. There is no science that can only be comprehended by those who have rejected God. There is no philosophy, or game or sport that is open only to atheists. Christians occupy all sciences and make profound and significant contributions.

When someone rejects something, it has to be defined. It is incoherent to reject a concept that is not defined. To say reality exists without God still requires the atheist to define what God is eliminated. And what reality is this which can exist even when God does not. What does an atheist eliminate that leaves reality intact? I can say reality does not need Acropachies but what is Acropachies? What am I saying? The sentence is incoherent not because the sentence structure prevents meaning but because the concept is not defined. The fact atheists use the letters G O D in a sentence does not mean they refer to what Christians worship.

Atheists in short need to prove their claim that they are atheist. They say they are atheists because they claim they can meaningfully deny the existence of God. They claim they are atheists because they are able to intelligibly deny the claim that God exists. It is true, the sentence has meaning grammatically. Atheists do not even need to say God does not exist to be atheists. Unless one asserts God exists, one is by default an atheist. But that is the point. People agree there is a God and they create coherence from this. To not accept God is not simply to carry on without a misstep. To fail to acknowledge God is to fail to join humanity. Humanity is not a thing it is a shared reality.

Probably as an atheist this argument may appear pedantic. But this is predicted from the theory. Rejecting a shared reality to promote individual freedom suggests one is not part of the shared reality of man.

Atheism is such a negative position the reality they share is a negative, by their own words the only thing atheists have in common with each other is a rejection of the reality that the rest of humanity shares.

The fact that God cannot be inserted into the negative atheist paradigm ought to be seen as significant. The nature of God is relational. God is not a thing disconnected and uncommunicated. Reality flows from his relationship with us.

Christians know God because God is so central to everything a Christian is, knows and believes.

We are part of reality. However, this reality is social. The physical reality we see is not as significant as the social reality. The physical reality is a set of understandings we were brought up with, that we learned as part of growing up. We were born into this world as a physical being. We communicate with this reality through our bodies. This is not an admission that there is such a thing separate from our conceptualization of it. We have come to see this physical reality as somehow objective and worthier of respect. God seems to be redundant in this world of the physical and it is this perspective that has given power to the atheist position.

There is however a world that is social, and it has to be consciously joined. Culture is a reality but not one discovered by means of the body.

Culture is a reality that is established by communication between human beings. The physical reality is primarily established through God’s communication channels. Refusing to communicate with anyone or communicating something unintelligible to others means one has not joined society.

By not asserting faith in God the atheist puts himself on a conceptual island surrounded by other atheists. They cannot communicate to Christians, they cannot comprehend the concept of God shared by Christians, but they also cannot articulate what it is they reject and what is worse they have no social construct to replace God.

Atheists create a society of isolated individuals with nothing in common but their hate of God.

But since this hate is directed against a component of their own subjective reality all they do is hate that which they themselves created. Their concept of god is worthy of hate but it is long the lines of writing a novel with a particularly evil villain. It does not make the villain real even if it elicits a negative reaction from the reader.

In reality, no one can actually reject God. Atheists only fail to accept Him and in so doing reject reality. We can reject the communications of God, we can fail to listen we can refuse to understand.

Compiling a list of names of things said to be god is not sufficient to demonstrate one has rejected God. Atheists need to recognize God to reject him just as we need to be aware of Santa to reject his reality, but in the recognition, we must accept God as God. This they will not do and cannot do so they reject a strawman.

Atheists cannot confirm or prove they reject God and so cannot confirm they are atheists. They can be seen as unsaved because they will not actively accept salvation but their claim to atheism is incoherent. All they can rightfully claim is that they reject God’s free gift of salvation.

Atheists say the person making the claim ought to provide evidence to substantiate the claim, extraordinary claims such as the one that God does not exist or that atheism is possible or that there is a reality sans God requires extraordinary proof. But atheists are inherently unable to provide proof for any of this. They know what they mean by saying they are atheists or think they do but they cannot communicate a knowledge of God that is conceptually coherent with the knowledge of God others have.

I might say I do not believe fish live in the sea but mean something entirely different than what others mean when they use the word. No amount of argument by a fisherman would convince me different because when I am talking about fish I am talking about a different creature than that which fishermen speak about.

A key issue is why atheists reject God. This is important because it illustrates the failure of atheists to comprehend the nature of God. In the mind of an atheist god is evil. This is natural. If atheists understood God in his true nature they would have no cause to reject him. Saying God is evil gives atheists just cause but only in the sense of a man divorcing his wife because he says she is unfaithful, despite this being a lie.

But this is the dilemma of atheism, if they comprehended God as He is in His true nature they could do nothing but Love him. So, we are led to conclude that if God is Good as God says he is then atheists do not reject the true God but a God of their imagination. And as we have seen, in so doing they end up compelled to create a reality that is unprovable.

In conclusion, Christians do not need to prove God exists, we only need to request atheists to make sense when they ask for a proof of God? They cannot prove their request is based on anything more than unsubstantiated assumptions both about the nature of reality and the nature of God. They must prove they have knowledge of a possible reality without God. They cannot do this and therefore it is pointless attempting to prove God exists when it is impossible for him not to – since a reality without God cannot be rationally conceived.

Because atheism is incoherent, and their world view inconsistent atheists have no foundation on which to mount any objection as to the reality of God.






A Refutation Of Atheism Part Two

Atheism is said to be the rejection of God, specifically atheists reject the idea of God or as they now say, atheism is the rejection of all claims to Gods existence. God says: ‘I AM, THAT I AM’. (Ex. 3:14). God declares himself to be. Atheists do not just reject the existence of God they reject the claim of God Himself.

God is as a sufficient and necessary condition of Himself. He Exists to fulfill all the necessary conditions of His existence. This is why Atheism is incoherent. In their rejection of God they do not fulfill the necessary conditions of his non-existence.

God is God. God fulfills all the necessary attributes of God. God is love, God is not evil. You cannot reject God because he is evil because God is not evil. If He was evil He would fail in expressing absolutely the nature of God.

God is love, God is merciful, He is all knowing, all seeing, He is transcendent and omniscient. If one rejects God as a thing created by man one does not reject the fullness of God. One knows in part and only rejects in part. No one can reject the fullness of God, the God that is God because He is God.

Rom. 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

Israel only knew God the Father and did not understand the mercy of God and the charity that was the free gift of salvation, so they looked at the sacrifice as a part forgiveness and not at the full forgiveness that we receive in Christ.

1 Cor. 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Even Christians only know in part. We serve God only as children and speak the wisdom of God as a child might speak. One day we will know even as we are known. The fullness of God will be revealed even to us who believe. For if we know not God in the fullness of His measure how much more in darkness must the lost be?

Mat. 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

As Jesus fulfilled the law he also fulfilled the person of God. To know in part is like a veil of ignorance. Those who do not know Christ are in some ways blinded by their lack.

2 Cor. 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

Those who know Christ understand the words of Christ. As one reject Jesus one rejects the knowledge of God. We cannot reject the person of Jesus without also rejecting the wisdom that comes with knowing Jesus.

2 Cor. 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The blindness of our heart leads to ungodliness.

2 Pet. 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

If our hearts are not open to love they are not open to understanding.

1 Joh. 2:10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

Even a simple thing like taking a gift, especially for the wrong reasons, will put blinders on our eyes.

Deu. 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

How then do atheists reject that which they are blind to? In the vernacular the formation of an idea for the express purpose of disputing it is called The Strawman Fallacy. According to this line of reasoning one cannot create an argument for the purpose of refuting it but this is precisely what atheists do. They create a god that has no validity because only gods created by men can be refuted by men.

Atheists do not reject God because he is loving and forgiving and promises salvation for sin. They reject god because the god they know is hateful, hurtful and dictatorial.

Yet, this is not just a difference of opinion. The atheist does not just have a different understanding of who God is. God is of one part. To say God is less than God is to destroy the meaning of God.

The I AM is an assertion. Its an unqualified statement regarding existence. We are mortal and constrained, we are bounded by time and space. God has no boundaries. He has unlimited existence. That is who God Absolutely Is.

We know even as humans that hate diminishes the one who hates. Perhaps we do not think much about this. But we need to approach hate from the position that God created reality and it reflects the nature of the Creator.

A Note On Evil

It seems necessary to insert a note on evil here. Invariably when atheists reject God is is wholly or partially due to their association of evil with God, this is interesting because without God there is no evil and evil only makes sense if God exists. To say God is evil is inherently incoherent if not a contradiction of terms. However, in my experience contradicting themselves is not a problem or issue with atheists.

Evil is not created by God. Due to His nature evil could not be created by God. If God is not good, He is not God. It is not just a matter of definition. God created all things and all things are good. Evil is not a thing and it is certainly not a Created thing and it is not good.

By definition God is not evil because evil is against God. If we subscribe evil to God our understanding of God and evil become confused and corrupt. When we start thinking God is evil we lose the ability to talk coherently about God.

God created the universe not the events in the universe at least not the events as exhibited by humankind. To make this clear in a way an atheist will understand we shall look at a race as representing life. Engineers represent God in that they make the cars, but they do not make the events of the race nor do they even create the race. The race is an application of the cars; a potential of the cars. The race happens according to laws, the race is governed by immutable laws. In reality laws are created by God. In a race the laws are created by those who create or design the race. In reality we cannot defeat the rules God put in place. In a race, drivers cannot defeat the laws of inertia and if the break the rules governing the race they are penalized. Physical laws are always in effect and immutable meaning in a contest between man and natural law; natural law always wins. Those who live within these laws governing race and reality win the race and the rest crash and burn but the laws always prevail and the purpose of the race reigns supreme. The race determines who best uses the laws and rules of the race. The race as a system of rules designed to produce a given outcome exists and is fulfilled regardless of what any driver does.

Individual drivers cannot change the outcome of the race. The winner is always the person who lives most fully within the rules of the race. Individuals cannot change the outcome of life which is to find those who live according to the Will of God. Simply by living within the rules of life one is rewarded just as one is penalized by breaking the rules.

Evil is not a thing it is the absence of a thing. Evil is the failure to live right. Evil is the decay of reality. If evil exists God does not, meaning that if evil was all pervasive then God would no longer be evidenced or available to us.

In terms of our analogy evil is driving without regards to the rules. The designers of the race did not invent the disobedience. The creators of the race did not assign someone to race is a way that is outside of the rules. But the choice exists simple by virtue of the opposite choice existing. If a person is free to race within the rules he or she of necessity must be able to not follow the rules.

Sin is going against God. Sin means we are breaking the rules of the race, evil is doing this in a systematic and purposeful manner. Regardless of the actions of individual drivers the race goes on and produces winners. In Gods race these are all those who abided by the rules or at least tried to. The rules of life give people the opportunity to betray the sort of heart they have. Ultimately, we are our own judge and executioner.  The race car driver that breaks the laws of inertia in a race crashes and burns and is out of the race. A driver that destroys his car cannot get a new car and get back in the race. In life, if we destroy this life with sin, we are destroyed for eternity

Evil is the absence of a thing in the way that atheism is the absence of belief. Sin is the absence of obedience to the rules of life and evil is sin done in a deliberate and persistent way. Sin is foolishness and evil is deliberate.

Sinners are the dupes of Satan but evil people are the missionaries of the Church of Satan.

Atheists say: ‘God does not exist’. This is inconclusive. Non-existence cannot be proven which any rational person acknowledges. The statement that God cannot exist can never be more than opinion. Atheists cannot disprove God exists and science much to the dismay of atheists is at best silent on the issue. A more aggressive tactic is for an atheist to define the character of God as a self-contradiction. They say; ‘God is evil’. If God is evil God is not God as this is a contradiction of God’s nature.

Another tactic atheist’s use is to argue that the bible is incomplete, inconsistent, in error, incomprehensible, and so on. If God is not as God defines Himself in Scripture, that is if Scripture is not a reliable guide to God then God Himself can reasonably be assumed not to exist.

Many atheists assert God is evil or the author of evil or an accessory to evil. If God can be demonstrated to be imperfect, or not up to the standard that God set for Himself then God is not God. If God is not fully coextensive with the attributes that God provided this is tantamount to saying God does not exist.

The assertion however, that God is evil is absurd. It does not need rebutting because it is inherently nonsensical. The existence of God cannot be reconciled with the statement that God is evil. If God is evil, the concept of god is not only contradictory, but the term evil loses its meaning. The idea that evil exists only has validity if the being, God, exists.

If we do not have a race defined by the rules that define what the race is then the claim a person is driving outside of the rules makes no sense, what is worse is that the race itself cannot exist unless that which is an offense against the rules of the race also exist.

There is no evil without God and without evil as a non-attribute of God the idea of God is incoherent.

Atheists are of the opinion that God Exists is of the same type of proposition as saying: “God is evil”. Saying God is evil is to contradict oneself. If God Exists He is not evil, if God is evil then evil does not exist which negates a god that is evil.

That which is evil is Satan and Satan exists only if God exists. These concepts are not mutually exclusive, they are interdependent but discrete.

We know God exists and we know if God exists then He is not evil. The contradiction between evil and God is not accidental but created in the logic of our language by God. Human beings cannot think wrongly and make sense. This inability to reconcile God and evil is a proof God Exists. If language was invented from nothing and gradually added to over time it is unlikely languages would interrelate to the degree, they do or be easily translated. It is not likely that if our language did not reflect reality it would not hold together logically, unless God existed and created language.

The point here is that our concepts lead us inevitably to the conclusion that God must exist because we cannot deny his existence within the conceptual framework of our language.

Indeed, we have to deny evil if we are to deny God. To claim God is evil is to eliminate the meaning of evil and make the existence of God impossible. So we accept evil and God as supremely Good or we deny evil.

Logically, we either admit God exists or we create a moral dilemma for ourselves.

The juxtaposition of Evil and God is incoherent from a conceptual or language perspective akin to saying: ‘This statement is a lie’. A statement cannot refer to itself. The paradox is poor grammar and the statement that God is evil is likewise grammatically incorrect.

Its syntax maybe valid but God is a term divorced from evil so to say God is evil makes as much sense as saying apples are oranges.

God as a concept is synonymous with Good. If an atheist wishes to claim god is evil he or she needs to use another term than God because the meaning of God is Good. By saying God is evil the atheist is making an incoherent claim.

Another tactic atheist use to dispute the existence of God is to bind him in space and time, or attempt to. If God is God then God has to be good and absolutely good or he is limited and finite and part of the rest of creation. To ask, as some atheists do, who created God is to confuse concepts. If God created everything then God existed before anything else existed and this includes time and space. Therefore, God exists outside of time and space bounded ideas such as before and after.

Who created God makes as much sense as saying God is evil and for the same reason. If God is in time and space he is not God, by asking who created God one is not talking about God.

It is not even correct to say that before God there was nothing because nothing is coherent only in terms of something. Our language, our concepts, prevent any coherent discussion about God apart from us, that is we can only talk about God in terms of his relationship with us.

God and evil cannot be reconciled either in reality or conceptually. Yet the argument exists that if God is all powerful and evil exists then phenomenologically evil can only exist by Gods permission and full knowledge. By this argument atheists wish to make God somehow culpable for evil.

We see evil and so it is natural to say evil exists but what do we see really? We see a child suffer from disease and poverty we say this is evil. We see a child deprived of his or her rights. We say this is evil. We see good things happen to bad persons and bad things happen to good persons. In our eyes this is an evil, but this evil is not a thing it is the absence of what we know to be good. It is an absence of God.

When we see evil, we do not see God. That is the point. God is not evil.

God cannot be evil because evil is not an attribute of a being. God is infinite means infinite is an attribute of God. To say God is evil says evil is an attribute of God, but evil is not an attribute of existence but an absence of something that ought to exist. To say God is evil is to suggest God is not god but then what is He?

Evil negates God because evil is the absence of God. To say God is evil is to say God negates himself. This is inherently nonsensical.

The presence of evil while tantamount to saying, ‘God does not exist where there is evil’, is not the same thing as saying God does not exist. The existence of evil affirms that where evil is God is not. God is not evil because evil and God are not compatible.

Indeed, the whole point to evil is that it exists only where God is not because evil and God cannot coexist.

Where evil exists the role and purpose of God does not exist. In this sense evil removes God from where evil exists. Evil is a proof God does not exist but only in the contingent and limited sense that evil is one master and we cannot serve two masters.

However, if God did not create evil where does evil come from? We are told in Scripture that evil originated in the Garden of Eden. We have mentioned that evil is the absence of God and evil negates God and is incompatible with the nature of God but if God created everything how could even the negation of God come about if not though the agency of God?