Bridging the Gap Between the Philosophical Conclusion of a First Cause/Designer to the Christian God

Thesis: The Christian God is the best explanation for a generic First Cause/Designer.

This argument builds on this one: God as First Cause & Designer Meets the Criteria for an Inference to the Best Explanation for the World as we know it.

But this leaves us with a massive question: How do we get from a generic First Cause/Designer to the Christian God?How do we bridge the gap between the cold, abstract "God of the philosophers" and the personal, loving God of the Bible?

This transition happens in two distinct phases:

1. The Philosophical Phase: Deducing the necessary characteristics of this First Cause to build a "metaphysical profile."

2. The Historical Phase: Investigating history to see if this Creator has ever personally broken His silence and stepped into human history.

---

Phase 1: Building the Metaphysical Profile 

Philosophy alone does not get you to the Trinity or the Bible, but classical theists argue that if you logically unpack what a "First Cause" and "Designer" must be, you arrive at a being that looks exactly like the God of classical theism.

• Uncaused and Eternal: Because an infinite regress of physical causes is impossible (as the blog discusses via the BGV theorem and the actual infinite), the First Cause must be uncaused. Since it is uncaused, it has no beginning, meaning it is eternal.

• Spaceless and Immaterial: The First Cause created physical space, matter, and time. Therefore, it cannot exist inside space or be made of matter. It must be spaceless and immaterial.

• Incredibly Powerful: To bring the entire physical universe into existence from nothing requires an agent of inconceivable power.

• Personal and Intelligent: The blog post argues that DNA contains functionally specified digital information. Since information only ever originates from a mind, the Designer must possess immense intellect. Furthermore, to transition from a timeless state of "nothingness" to a temporal creation, the First Cause must have made a choice to create—and only a personal agent with a free will can make a choice.

• Singular: By Ockham’s Razor (parsimony), we do not multiply causes beyond necessity. One omnipotent First Cause is sufficient to explain the universe.

At this stage, philosophy has narrowed the options down. We are no longer talking about a pantheistic "force" (which is bound to the material universe) or a pantheon of limited Greek gods. We are left with Monotheism: a single, eternal, immaterial, personal, and immensely powerful Creator.

We cannot discover the Trinity or the Sermon on the Mount through physics. However, if we logically unpack what a "First Cause" and "Designer" must be, we find that the laws of logic force us into classical monotheism.

If you create space, time, and matter, you cannot be made of space, time, or matter. Therefore, the Cause of the universe must possess several specific attributes:

1. The Attributes of the God of Philosophy: Timeless, Spaceless, Omnipotence and Immaterial

Because the Big Bang represents the origin of all physical matter, space, and time itself, the cause of the Big Bang must transcend these categories.

• Timeless (Eternal): It has no beginning and no end; it exists outside the flow of time.

• Spaceless: It has no physical dimensions or geographic location.

• Immaterial: It is not made of physical molecules, energy, or matter. It is a spiritual or mental entity.

• Omnipotence: the quality of having unlimited and absolute power

2. Inconceivably Powerful (Omnipotent)

To bring the entirety of our physical reality—hundreds of billions of galaxies, dark matter, and energy—into existence out of absolute nothingness (creatio ex nihilo) requires a source of causal power that is practically infinite.

3. Personal (The Pivotal Transition)

This is where we move from an impersonal "force" (like gravity or electromagnetism) to a personal Being. How do we know the First Cause is personal?

• The Problem of Timeless Causality: If the cause of the universe were an impersonal, mechanical set of conditions, the effect would have to coexist with the cause. For example, if the cause of water freezing is a temperature below 0°C, then whenever the temperature is below 0°C, the water is frozen. If the cause is timelessly present, the effect (the universe) would also be timelessly present.

• The Power of Volition: The only way to have a timeless cause produce a beginning in time is if the cause is a personal agent with free will. A personal agent can exist timelessly and freely choose to initiate an effect at a specific moment.

• The Presence of Mind: As established by the fine-tuning of the universe and the digital code of DNA, the Designer must possess immense intellect. You cannot have "design" without a mind, and you cannot have a mind without a person.

Excursion - A question that is often asked, Is an immaterial Mind a coherent concept?   - Click the link to see why it is. 

4. Singular (Monotheism)

By applying Ockham’s Razor - the philosophical principle that we should not multiply explanatory entities beyond necessity - we only need to posit one uncaused First Cause to explain the universe. Furthermore, two truly omnipotent beings is a logical contradiction; if one can override the other, the other is not all-powerful.

The Philosophical Verdict: Philosophy brings us to a single, eternal, immaterial, all-powerful, highly intelligent, personal Creator. This eliminates pantheism, polytheism, and deism. We are left standing at the door of Monotheism.

5. The Argument for Divine Benevolence

If we accept the premise that a personal Creator exists and deliberately fine-tuned the universe to allow conscious, personal beings to flourish, two powerful inferences naturally follow: the Creator is inherently benevolent, and it is highly rational to expect this Creator to communicate with us.

Fine-tuning is not merely a display of power; it is an act of immense intentionality and care.

• Creation as an Act of Goodness: A universe capable of supporting conscious life requires an extraordinarily narrow set of physical constants. Had the Creator desired a chaotic, lifeless, or purely destructive cosmos, no fine-tuning would have been required. The deliberate setup of a universe that fosters life, joy, awareness, and relational capacity points to a Creator whose intentions toward conscious creatures are fundamentally positive.

• The Nature of Personal Value: By creating beings capable of love, moral reasoning, and experiencing value, the Creator demonstrated that personal life holds intrinsic worth. It is contradictory to attribute fine-tuned care to the creation of personal life while assuming the Creator is indifferent or malicious toward that life. [See also, Why Does God Equal Good?]

5. The Argument for Divine Communication

Once benevolence and personal agency are established, divine silence becomes the far less rational default.

• Relational Symmetry: Personal beings are built for communication and relationship. If a personal Creator intentionally brought other personal beings into existence, it is contradictory to assume an eternal "silence." Personal agents create other personal agents for communion, not passive observation.

• The Purpose of Consciousness: If the Creator went to immense effort to fine-tune a universe so that conscious beings could observe, reflect, and wonder about their origin, it stands to reason that this capacity for reflection was given so we could know the Creator. Creating beings with the capacity to ask "Why are we here?" without ever providing an answer would run counter to the purposeful nature shown in fine-tuning.

• Moral Alignment and Guidance: A benevolent Creator who endows creatures with moral agency and free will would naturally provide clarity regarding ultimate truth, moral purpose, and human destiny, rather than leaving creation to wander in complete ignorance.

• Respect for Rationality and Critical Thinking: A benevolent Creator who endows human beings with intellect, logic, and the capacity for critical thought would not expect passive, uncritical submission. Because reason itself is a reflection of the Creator's rational nature, divine communication would invite us to test, evaluate, and think deeply—engaging our minds rather than overriding them. Encouraging genuine intellectual engagement is a sign of benevolence, as it treats conscious creatures as active participants in truth rather than mere spectators.

Summary of the Metaphysical Profile

Fine-tuning demonstrates intent, life demonstrates value, and personal consciousness demonstrates a capacity for relationship. Therefore, believing that this Creator is benevolent and has actively broken the silence to reveal Himself to humanity is not a leap of blind faith, but the most logical continuation of classical theism.

6. Monotheistic Religions 

Out of the five major world religions, only Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are monotheistic.

Hinduism and Buddhism, the other 2 of the 5, are not traditionally classified as monotheistic religions.

Hinduism is highly diverse and is generally described as polytheistic, henotheistic, or pantheistic.  It is not a traditional personal deity to be prayed to, but rather the limitless foundation of existence and the universe's true essence.

Buddhism: Buddhism is non-theistic, rejecting the idea of a supreme creator God and focusing on self-realization to escape suffering.

Other religions usually classified as monotheistic come onto the scene very late and/or lack one or more of the key attributes of the God of philosophy:

• Zoroastrianism - Not montheism but cosmic dualism. Ahura Mazda (the supreme good deity) and Angra Mainyu (the supreme evil deity). Many Zoroastrian texts that contain explicit parallels to Christian theology were not written down until the Pahlavi period (9th to 10th centuries AD).  More than a millennium since the death of Zoroaster. Lacks - Omnipotence

• Sikhism - founded in the late 15th century in the Punjab region of South Asia by Guru Nanak (1469–1539). Sikhism respects Jesus as an enlightened spiritual teacher.

• Tenrikyo - founded in 1838 in Japan. Lacks Immateriality and Transcendence.

• Baháʼí Faith - The Baháʼí Faith traces its origins to 1844. They see [Jesus as a guru](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/krqtf3jp8S8)

• Vodou - Vodou originated in the Caribbean between the 16th and 18th centuries. More of a Deist religion than a monotheistic one. 

• Rastafarianism began in the 1930s by Jamaican activist Marcus Garvey. Lacks Transcendence and Immateriality.

• Eckankar - founded in 1965 in California. Lacks Singularity as a Personal Agent - the supreme deity "Sugmad"  is not viewed as a personal God with a mind or volition who makes choices. Instead, the Sugmad is described as an impersonal, infinite ocean of love and mercy. 

Atenism -  a radical monotheistic religion in ancient Egypt, centered on the exclusive worship of the sun god, Aten. Established in the 14th century BC by Pharaoh Akhenaten during the 18th Dynasty. It replaced traditional polytheism and banned the worship of other deities like Amun. It died out quickly.

Deism - Deism aligns almost perfectly with the "God of the philosophers" (classical theism) during the Philosophical Phase above,  Deism breaks down when moving toward the personal elements and Phase 2 below.

Note: I'm sure I've missed one or more religions. You are welcome to let me know which ones should be on the list above.

---

Phase 2: Finding the Creator in History (The Bridge)

If a personal Creator exists, and went to the immense trouble of fine-tuning a universe specifically so that conscious, personal beings could exist, it is highly rational to assume this Creator would want to communicate with us.

But did He? To answer this, we must transition from philosophy to historical investigation.

Jesus Christ - The Climax of Divine Revelation 

Throughout history, many have claimed to speak for God. But one historical figure made a claim so radical that it split human history in two: Jesus of Nazareth.

Unlike other religious leaders who claimed merely to point to a path or deliver a message, Jesus claimed to be the Creator in human flesh. He claimed the authority to forgive sins, redefined divine law, and explicitly stated, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

If Jesus was telling the truth, the bridge is crossed. The "First Cause" has a face.

Testing the Claim: The Resurrection of Jesus

Anyone can claim to be God. To prove it, Jesus offered a specific, testable sign: He predicted He would be brutally executed and then rise from the dead.

To test this claim, we don't need to assume the Bible is divinely inspired. We can simply treat the New Testament documents as ordinary, first-century Greek historical texts and apply standard historical methods.

Using the "Minimal Facts" approach - relying entirely on historical data that are so strongly attested that virtually all historians (including skeptical, atheist, and Jewish scholars) agree on them - we can reconstruct what happened:

• Fact 1: The Crucifixion. Jesus was executed by Roman crucifixion under Pontius Pilate and died.

• Fact 2: The Empty Tomb. A few days after his burial, his tomb was found empty. (Historically, the movement could never have started in Jerusalem if the authorities could have simply pointed to Jesus' decaying body in the tomb).

• Fact 3: Post-Mortem Appearances. Individual disciples, groups of disciples, and even crowds of people sincerely believed they saw, spoke to, and ate with Jesus alive after His death.

• Fact 4: Sincere Martyrdom. The disciples did not just write stories; they spent the rest of their lives preaching the resurrection in the face of torture, poverty, and execution. People will sometimes die for a lie they believe is true, but no one willingly dies for a lie they know they fabricated.

• Fact 5: The Conversion of Skeptics.

  • James, the brother of Jesus, was an active skeptic during Jesus' life but became a leader of the early church and was martyred after believing he saw the risen Christ.

  • Saul of Tarsus (Paul), a violent persecutor of the early church, suddenly converted and became its greatest missionary after an encounter with the risen Jesus, eventually being beheaded in Rome.

The Best Explanation

How do we explain these facts?

• The Conspiracy Theory (The disciples stole the body) fails because it cannot explain their willingness to face gruesome deaths for a known hoax, nor does it explain the conversion of hostile skeptics like Paul.

• The Hallucination Theory fails because hallucinations are private, subjective mental events. Group hallucinations of the same person, multiple times, across different settings, is a psychological impossibility.

• The Resurrection is the only explanation that perfectly fits all five facts.

Because we already established in Phase 1 that a transcendent, all-powerful God exists, miracles are entirely possible. Raising Jesus from the dead is a simple task for the Being who spoke the laws of physics into existence.

---

Conclusion: The Convergence

The journey from science to Christ is a seamless line of logical steps:

1. Cosmology points to a timeless, spaceless, immaterial First Cause.

2. Biology and physics point to an intelligent, Personal Mind.

3. History reveals that this Mind stepped into our world, died on a Roman cross, and conquered death.

The "First Cause" of the cosmos is not an indifferent, mathematical formula. It is a personal Creator who knows you, loves you, and entered our physical reality in the person of Jesus Christ to bring us back into relationship with Him

1. The Argument from Divine Revelation

If a personal Creator exists, and went to the immense trouble of fine-tuning a universe specifically so that conscious, personal beings could exist, it is highly probable that this Creator would want to communicate with those beings. Apologists look through history to see where a claim of divine communication has occurred and test its reliability.

2. The Reliability of the New Testament

Apologists point to the historical documents of the New Testament (as referenced in the blog's sidebar under popular posts like "The Early Dating of the New Testament"). They argue that the Gospels and letters are not myth, but highly reliable, early, first-century historical records backed by eyewitness testimony.

3. The Resurrection of Jesus

The ultimate pivot point to Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus.

• The Claim: Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the physical incarnation of this transcendent Creator God ("I and the Father are one"). He predicted He would be killed and rise from the dead as proof of His authority.

• The Historical Evidence: Secular and Christian historians widely agree on several core facts: Jesus was crucified, His tomb was found empty a few days later, and His disciples (as well as skeptics like Paul and James) suddenly and sincerely believed they saw Him alive, to the point of being tortured and martyred for that belief.

• The Miracle Context: Because Phase 1 already established that a transcendent God exists, miracles are possible. Therefore, the resurrection is the most causally adequate explanation for the empty tomb and the radical birth of the Christian Church.

Summary

• Cosmology & Physics get you to an Eternal, Timeless, Spaceless, All-Powerful First Cause.

• Biology & Fine-Tuning get you an Intelligent, Personal Mind.

• History & the Resurrection identify that Mind as Jesus Christ.

Atheist Religion

The argument that atheists and critics of religion subscribe to their own "religion" - often centered on materialism, evolution, science, and non-belief - is a common critique raised by theologians, philosophers, and religious apologists.

Essentially, the very criticisms atheists level against religious communities - intellectual laziness, rigid dogma, and tribal conformity - can be turned right back on a dogmatic secular worldview.

Here is how those parallels align:

1. Blind Faith vs. Scientism (The Intellectual Double Standard)

• The Atheist View of Religion: Atheists typically criticize religious people for relying on "blind faith" and accepting ancient texts or authority figures without evidence.

• The Parallel: Critics argue that many self-proclaimed atheists do the exact same thing with science. Rather than actually reading scientific papers or understanding complex data, they rely on "scientism" - treating popular science communicators as infallible authorities. "Trust the science" becomes a mantra equivalent to "trust the scriptures," where laypeople accept claims on faith because a certified "priest" (i.e. scientist) said so.

2. Dogma and Closed-Mindedness

• The Atheist View of Religion: Religions are seen as closed systems of thought that reject any outside evidence. If a fact contradicts the Bible, the dogma dictates that the fact must be wrong.

• The Parallel: Philosophical materialism functions with the same rigid boundary. If a materialist is presented with an anomaly, a near-death experience, or a philosophical argument for the transcendent, the dogma of "matter is all there is" dictates that the anomaly must be a delusion or a scientific error. There is no room to entertain alternative hypotheses, making the mindset just as closed to new possibilities as the religious dogma they criticize.

3. Tribalism, In-Group Bias, and "The Other"

• The Atheist View of Religion: Religious groups are often criticized for being tribal, thinking they hold the exclusive monopoly on truth, and looking down on outsiders as morally or intellectually inferior.

• The Parallel: The secular community frequently exhibits intense tribalism. Online atheist spaces, forums, and organizations often foster an "us vs. them" mentality, framing non-believers as uniquely "rational" and "enlightened" while stereotyping all religious people as gullible or uneducated. This smug intellectual superiority mirrors the spiritual superiority found in exclusive religious sects.

4. Heresy and Excommunication

• The Atheist View of Religion: Religions traditionally punish heretics through excommunication, shunning, or public condemnation to keep the flock in line.

• The Parallel: Secular orthodoxy enforces its moral and philosophical boundaries with similar zeal. If an individual within secular or progressive circles questions prevailing social dogmas or challenges the consensus on certain issues, they risk social excommunication (cancellation, deplatforming, or professional shunning). The enforcement of "correct think" (orthodoxy) is just as fierce, demanding public conformity to avoid being cast out of the tribe.

5. Missionary Zeal

• The Atheist View of Religion: Atheists often find proselytizing—religious people trying to convert others to their way of thinking—to be intrusive and annoying.

• The Parallel: The "New Atheism" movement and active online secularism are highly evangelical. There is a strong drive to convert religious believers to secularism, often framed as "freeing" them from mental slavery. This urge to preach, debate, and aggressively dismantle the beliefs of others mimics the exact missionary impulse they find objectionable in religious groups.

6. Faith in Non-Provable Axioms (Materialism)

At the heart of any religion is a set of core beliefs that cannot be definitively proven but are accepted as foundational truth. Critics argue that philosophical materialism (the belief that only physical matter and energy exist) is itself a dogma.

• To assert that there is no spiritual dimension, no afterlife, and no transcendent creator requires a leap of faith, because science cannot definitively prove a negative.

• Therefore, the materialist's starting assumption - "matter is all there is" - is viewed not as a proven fact, but as a primary article of faith that dictates how they interpret all of reality.

7. A Creation Narrative (Evolutionary Origins)

Every major religion has an origin story that explains where we came from and how we got here. Critics argue that for the secular materialist, evolutionary theory is elevated from a scientific mechanism to a creation myth.

• When evolution is used not just to explain biology, but to explain human morality, consciousness, love, and the purpose of existence, it functions like a religious narrative.

• It provides a framework for understanding human nature, our relationship to the cosmos, and our place in the universe, filling the psychological role traditionally held by religious creation texts.

8. Ultimate Authority and "Clergy" (Science and Scientism)

Religions rely on sacred texts and an ordained clergy to interpret truth for the layperson. Critics argue that scientism (the belief that science is the only valid source of knowledge) treats the scientific establishment in a similar way.

• In this view, peer-reviewed journals are treated as sacred scripture, and prominent scientists or secular public intellectuals (like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Neil deGrasse Tyson) act as the high priests.

• The phrase "trust the science" can sometimes take on a dogmatic tone, demanding obedience and faith from the public on complex issues, even when the average person does not fully understand the underlying data.

9. A Moral Code and Orthodoxy (Secular Humanism)

Even without a god, secularism has its own moral orthodoxy. This is often framed around secular humanism, utilitarianism, or progressive social values.

• There are clear boundaries for what is considered "good" and "bad," and those who violate secular social norms can face public shunning, deplatforming, or social exile (resembling traditional practices of excommunication).

• The desire to convert others to this worldview—often through secular education and the critique of traditional beliefs—mirrors the missionary zeal of proselytizing religions.

10. A Shared Community and Identity (Non-Belief)

Religion provides community and a shared identity centered on common rituals and a shared enemy or "other."

• Organizations, secular meetups, online forums, and advocacy groups (like the Freedom From Religion Foundation or various humanist associations) allow atheists to gather, reinforce their shared worldview, and organize politically.

• Defining oneself in opposition to theism ("non-belief") becomes a central pillar of identity, complete with its own apologetics, debates, and shared terminology.

---

Summary

 

A dogmatic secular worldview often mirrors the exact religious behaviors and structures it criticizes, effectively functioning as its own "religion." By relying on "scientism" as a form of blind faith in scientific authorities and treating philosophical materialism as an unprovable, rigid dogma, dogmatic atheism shuts out alternative viewpoints much like traditional religious closed-mindedness. 

Furthermore, secular communities frequently display strong tribalism, enforce moral conformity through social "excommunication" (such as cancellation or shunning), and proselytize with evangelical zeal. Ultimately, by elevating evolutionary theory into a creation narrative and organizing communities around a shared identity of non-belief, this mindset adopts the same psychological, moral, and social roles found in the religious institutions it rejects.

God Sent God to be Sacrificed to God to Save You from God

This phrase is a common skeptical "shorthand" used to make the Christian doctrine of the Atonement sound circular or nonsensical.

Here are the primary ways apologists typically respond to this specific challenge:

1. Clarifying the Trinity ("God sent God")

The critique treats God as a single person acting in different roles, but orthodox Christianity views God as one being in three persons.

• The Response: It isn't "God sending Himself" in a way that implies a split personality; it is the Father sending the Son. They share the same divine essence but are distinct in their relations. This highlights a communal act of love rather than a solitary, confusing transaction.

2. Distinguishing Voluntary Sacrifice ("To be sacrificed")

The skeptical phrasing often implies a cosmic child abuse scenario where a distant God forces an innocent third party to suffer.

• The Response: Jesus was not sent against His will; He came and laid down His life freely. It is more like a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his friends than a king executing a subject to satisfy a whim.

3. Understanding Justice and Mercy ("To God")

The idea of God sacrificing to Himself sounds odd, but apologists frame it through the lens of God's dual nature as perfectly Just and perfectly Loving.

• The Response: Because God is just, sin must have consequences. Because God is love, He chooses to bear those consequences Himself. The sacrifice is to God in the sense that it satisfies the requirements of divine justice, allowing God to be "both just and the justifier" (Romans 3:26).

4. Reframing the Threat ("Save you from what God will do")

The phrase implies that God is a looming threat we need protection from, similar to a protection racket.

• The Response: Many Christians argue that we aren't being saved from a mean God, but from the natural, logical consequences of our own choices (sin). The condemnation is often described as something we are already in due to our separation from the source of life, and the sacrifice is a rescue mission rather than a stay of execution.

---

Summary Table of the "Correction"

Skeptical Phrase	Theological Counter-Point
"God sent God"	The Father sent the Son (distinct Persons, one Essence).
"To be sacrificed"	A voluntary act of self-giving love, not forced execution.
"To God"	Satisfying the moral requirements of perfect Justice.
"From what God will do"	Saving humanity from the natural results of turning away from Life.

Secular Moral Realism - A Critique

What is Secular Moral Realism?

Secular moral realism is a meta-ethical position asserting that objective moral facts exist independently of human opinions, cultural norms, or divine commands.

Unlike religious moral realism (which grounds morality in God, such as in Divine Command Theory), the secular version argues that moral truths can be discovered through naturalistic inquiry, reason, and empathy. Just as there are objective facts in physics or mathematics, secular moral realists argue there are objective facts about what is morally good or bad (e.g., "torture is objectively wrong").

Core Components:

Mind-Independence: Moral properties exist out in the world, not just in the minds or attitudes of human beings.

Naturalistic Foundation: Morality is grounded in observable realities like human experience, evolutionary biology, conscious well-being, and logic, rather than supernatural forces.

Rationality and Empathy: Moral principles are derived from logical consistency and our capacity to understand the suffering and flourishing of conscious creatures.

Analysis: How It Works and Where It Fits

Secular moral realism sits at the intersection of atheist/secular philosophy and objective ethics. It attempts to answer the common critique that "without God, anything is permissible."

• Contrasts with Anti-Realism: It opposes moral relativism (morality depends on culture), moral subjectivism (morality is personal preference), and moral error theory/nihilism (all moral statements are false because moral properties don't exist).

• Common Frameworks: Secular moral realists often align with specific ethical systems to explain how we discover these facts:

  • Consequentialism / Utilitarianism:Thinkers like Sam Harris argue that moral facts are simply facts about the well-being of conscious creatures. Actions that maximize flourishing are objectively "good."

  • Kantian Rationalism: Immanuel Kant (and modern neo-Kantians) argued that morality is derived from pure reason and logical consistency (the categorical imperative), independent of religion.

Evaluation: Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths (Arguments in Favor)

• Aligns with Human Intuition: It deeply aligns with our strong intuition that certain acts (like cruelty for fun) are not just "unpopular," but inherently and universally wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks.

• Universalism and Progress: It allows for the concept of moral progress. If objective moral facts exist, we can say that ending slavery was a genuine moral improvement, rather than just a shift in cultural tastes.

• Solves the Euthyphro Dilemma: It avoids the classic theological problem of whether something is good because God commands it (making morality arbitrary) or if God commands it because it is already good (meaning morality exists independently of God anyway).

Weaknesses (Arguments Against / Challenges)

• The "Is-Ought" Problem (Hume's Guillotine): This is the most famous challenge. Critics argue you cannot logically jump from a descriptive statement about nature (an "is," such as "this action causes pain") to a prescriptive moral statement (an "ought," such as "you ought not do this action").

• The Argument from Queerness (J.L. Mackie): If objective moral properties exist in the natural world without a God, they would be profoundly strange entities unlike anything else in the universe. How do these "moral particles" exist, and how do we interact with them?

• Evolutionary Debunking Arguments: Critics argue that our moral intuitions are simply the result of blind evolutionary processes designed to help our ancestors survive and cooperate. Because evolution optimizes for survival rather than "objective truth," our moral beliefs are likely just biological programming, not reflections of mind-independent moral facts.

Rebuttal - Expanding on the Weaknesses

While secular moral realism is a popular attempt to save objective morality without religion, it faces devastating critiques from within secular philosophy itself. To robustly debunk and rebut secular moral realism, one must dismantle its core premise: the idea that objective moral facts (e.g., "murder is inherently wrong") exist out in the natural universe independently of human minds, cultures, or divine commands. Here are the strongest philosophical arguments used to rebut and debunk it:

The "Is-Ought" Problem (Hume’s Guillotine)

The most famous argument against naturalistic moral realism was articulated by David Hume. Hume pointed out that you cannot logically deduce an "ought" (a prescriptive moral command) from an "is" (a descriptive fact about nature).

• The Problem: Secular moral realists (like Sam Harris) often argue that because certain actions cause physical pain or reduce human flourishing (an "is"), we therefore ought not do them.

• The Rebuttal: This is a logical fallacy. Science can tell us that touching a hot stove causes tissue damage (a biological fact). But science cannot tell you that you ought to care about tissue damage. To cross from biology to morality, the secular realist has to smuggle in an unproven, subjective premise (e.g., "we should value human flourishing"). Thus, the foundation is not an objective fact, but a subjective preference.

The Evolutionary Debunking Argument

If moral facts are real, objective features of the universe, how did humans come to know them? Secular realists usually point to human intuition and empathy, which evolved over millions of years.

• The Problem: Evolution by natural selection does not select for "objective truth"; it selects for survival and reproduction.

• The Rebuttal: Philosophers like Sharon Street argue that our moral intuitions (e.g., "care for your children," "do not kill your neighbors") were programmed into us by evolution simply because these behaviors fostered social cohesion and kept our ancestors alive. If our moral beliefs are just the result of blind biological programming geared toward survival, it is an incredible, unbelievable coincidence that this programming happens to align with "objective cosmic moral truths." Therefore, moral realism is an illusion foisted upon us by our genes to get us to cooperate.

The Argument from Queerness (J.L. Mackie)

Philosopher J.L. Mackie famously argued against moral realism by pointing out how utterly bizarre objective moral facts would have to be if they existed in a purely material, secular universe.

• Ontological Queerness: If the universe consists only of atoms, energy, and physical laws, what exactly is a "moral fact"? It isn't a particle, a wave, or a force. If moral properties exist out in the wild, they would be profoundly weird entities unlike anything else in physics or biology.

• Epistemological Queerness: Furthermore, they possess a magical "to-be-done-ness" or "not-to-be-done-ness." How could a completely blind, physical universe contain invisible laws that inherently demand humans behave in a certain way? Mackie argued that it is far simpler and more rational to conclude that these "queer" entities just don't exist.

The "So What?" (Motivation) Problem

Even if we grant the secular realist their premise—let's say we mathematically prove that "Action X maximizes human well-being"—the anti-realist can still say, "So what?"

• The Rebuttal: Objective facts in the natural world do not carry intrinsic motivation. If a sociopath recognizes that torturing someone decreases human flourishing, but they enjoy doing it anyway, on what objective grounds are they wrong? The secular moral realist can only say, "You are acting against human flourishing." The sociopath can reply, "I know, and I don't care about human flourishing." Without a transcendent authority (like a God) to enforce or ground the "ought," secular moral facts lose their binding authority. They become mere observations that one is free to ignore.

Conclusion

In conclusion, secular moral realism provides a robust framework for those who wish to maintain that morality is universal and binding without relying on the supernatural. However, it requires a heavy philosophical lift to explain exactly what these moral facts are made of and how we reliably access them using only the natural sciences and reason.

The Atheist and the Bear

An atheist is hiking in the woods, when suddenly a huge bear pops up from behind a bush, right, as the bear is about to attack him, time freezes. Then God appears before him.

 
God: You have spent your whole life as an atheist, but if you finally believe in me and become Christian. I will stop the bear from eating you,

Atheist: Oh, that's really nice of you. But, nah, I don't really believe in a higher power.

God: All you have to do is believe. Just believe your eyes and accept me in your heart,

Atheist: Nah, it's just too hard for me to do. I mean, science has already answered how he came about for evolution, and not only that with all the bad things happening in the world right now. I think it's just too difficult to believe that there's a God.

God: Are you sure? I'll give you a little more opportunity to believe in me. Take your time and think about it.

Atheist: Nope, don't be any time. No, thanks,

God: Okay, you've made your choice.

Atheist: Wait, how about this? Why don't you make the bear Christine instead? And then I'll have some morals and then leave me alone.

God: Very well.

After God left, time restarted, the bear suddenly stopped, and the man smiled. His plan to save himself clearly worked,

Then the bear kneeled down and said. "Thank you God, for this meal I'm about to receive". .

Atheism Defintion

For a significant portion of history, the standard definition of atheism was specifically the positive assertion that "God does not exist".

While many modern atheists define the term as a simple "lack of belief" (a psychological state), this is a relatively recent shift in the word's primary usage.

Here is the breakdown of how the definition has evolved from "denial" to "lack of belief."

1. The Historical Definition (16th–Mid-20th Century)

From its entry into the English language (via the French athéisme) in the 16th century until the mid-20th century, atheism was almost exclusively defined as the specific metaphysical claim that there is no God.

Academic Standard: In philosophy, atheism was traditionally viewed as the mirror opposite of theism. If theism was the proposition "God exists," atheism was the proposition "God does not exist."

The Agnostic Distinction: Because "atheist" was seen as a claim of knowledge (asserting a negative), it was distinct from "agnostic." In the late 19th century, Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term agnosticism specifically to describe people who "lacked belief" but refused to assert that God didn't exist because they felt the evidence was insufficient to claim either way.

2. The Shift: Antony Flew & The "Presumption of Atheism"

The definitions began to change significantly in 1976, when the philosopher Antony Flew wrote The Presumption of Atheism.

Flew argued that the burden of proof should lie with the believer. To achieve this logically, he proposed re-defining "atheism" not as a positive claim ("God does not exist") but as a negative state ("I do not hold a belief in God"). He explicitly admitted he was using the word in a new, "unusual" way to win a debate advantage. 

He wrote: "The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually... I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively." This "negative definition" became incredibly popular among secular activists because it removed the burden of proof. If you are just "lacking belief," you don't have to prove anything, since this is just a statement about one's inner psychological state.

Note: Flew later rejected atheism ("there is no God" definition) and wrote There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Update:

"That was done to win a debate advantage", was not a quote, but that idea was in his book "The Presumption of Atheism" - 3rd chapter, 2nd paragraph. Here it is in full:

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and "asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter. What the protagonist of my presumption of atheism wants to show is that the debate about the existence of God ought to be conducted in a particular way, and that the issue should be seen in a certain perspective. His thesis about the onus of proof involves that it is up to the theist: first, to introduce and to defend his proposed concept of God; and, second, to provide sufficient reason for believing that this concept of his does in fact have an application. Here is a PDF of Chapter 3 - The Presumption of Atheism.

The only way Flew could do this was to turn atheism from a claim into a non-claim.

3. The Current Split

Today, you will encounter two different definitions depending on who you are talking to:

• In Philosophy: Most academic encyclopedias (like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) still define atheism as the view that there are no gods. They typically use the term "non-theism" for the broader lack of belief.

• In Public Discourse: Most self-described atheists and activist groups (like American Atheists) use the broader definition: "A lack of belief in gods."

To bridge this gap, people now often use qualifiers:

• Negative/Weak Atheism: Lacking belief (closer to the modern definition).

• Positive/Strong Atheism: Asserting God does not exist (the historical definition).

Short Vid 

Is the Argument from Reason is Too Successful For its Own Good?

 this Reddit post will be posted here in black. My replies will be in red

Thesis: the argument from reason mistakenly applies a general doubt about the validity of reason to the specific case of naturalism, but in reality applies equally to supernaturalism, as well as any other account of the universe, theistic or not. Therefore, it is not a relevant argument in discussions of theism.

TL;DR

The argument from reason states that naturalism (the view that only the natural exists and the supernatural does not) depends on reason, but makes it impossible to trust that same reason. On this grounds, it rejects naturalism. However, it is impossible to trust reason under any worldview, including theism. This has nothing to do with naturalism - it's just a feature of reason. Therefore, the argument from reason, if successful, succeeds at rejecting all worldviews (including the claim that the argument from reason itself is valid). So the argument from reason contradicts itself and must fail.

The Argument from Reason

The argument from reason is an argument associated with Christian apologist C. S. Lewis and popular with online Christian apologists in general (though it does not relate to Christianity specifically). The argument seeks to disprove a view of the universe called "naturalism", which basically holds that only natural things and the relationships between them exist, and that the supernatural doesn't. Some versions of the argument also further try to prove supernaturalism or theism.

Here is C. S. Lewis's description of the argument from reason:

One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.— C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?", The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses

In simpler terms, the argument basically goes like this:

If we claim naturalism is true, then we and everything we are is the result of natural, mindless, non-rational forces acting without any purpose.

If we are the result of nonrational forces, there is no reason to think that they would produce humans with an ability to use reliable reason.

Therefore, we have no reason to trust our own reasoning, and so we can't trust the reasoning that led us to naturalism.

A common counterargument to this is to point to evolution. 

Evolution, the defender of natural logic will say, favors humans who can correctly reason over those they cannot! Therefore there is a reason to think mindless forces produced reliable reason in us! It is at this point the proponent of the argument from reason will usually smirk, and say, "Oh? And how exactly do you know evolution is true? Did you use reason to conclude that? Hohohoho!", pushing up their glasses as they gently stroke their signed copy of Mere Christianity.

The apologist's defense here is simple but quite impenetrable. Any counterargument you present to defend your naturally-created reason will be based on, you guessed it, reason. So any counterargument you make will be circular! You cannot use unreliable reason to show that same reason to be reliable!

But they forget that in a naturalistic worldview, everything is the result of matter acting in accordance with the physical laws. Not the laws of logic. So, when the atheist cites "reason" or a "reasonable conclusion", it really just the result of an unintelligent, mindless, material process that follows the physical laws, not logic/reason. 

But what of the Theist? She is not bound by the natural or by the physical laws. Thus, that which constrains the atheist/naturalist brain does not do so to the Theist. The Theist is free from the bounds of the physical and can engage in critical thinking as governed by the laws of logic. - From my post on the Argument From Reason

So, what are we to do? Do we give up and convert to theism post-haste? Instead, let's take a trip - in our favorite rocket ship - to visit Planet Populon.

Planet Populon

Planet Populon is a distant planet not so different from Earth. On it live a race on beings called the Popularians, who are little purple creatures with four arms and six toes on each foot. They are very similar to humans, save for one important difference: they are incapable of understanding the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.

The appeal to popularity is a simple logical fallacy that says "because an idea is popular, it must be true." To us humans, it's easy to see why this is false. For example, it was once popular to think the earth was flat! In some places, it's popular to think that pineapple tastes good on pizza! And yet those things are obviously false.

But the Popularians are different from us. They are incapable of recognizing this as a fallacy. Whenever one of them begins to think about the problems or contradictions that arise from an appeal to popularity, a special gland in their brains immediately floods their minds with thoughts of the last sports-ball match they watched, and they stop thinking about logical fallacies. Thus, the Popularians never realize that an appeal to popularity is fallacious - they are convinced that it's a valid form of reasoning.

The Popularians, too, believe in God. In fact, they have a logical proof of God's existence, known as the populogical argument. It goes a little something like this: most Popularians believe God exists – therefore, God exists. It's a flawless argument, beautiful in its simplicity, so elegant and minimal that there's no room for logical errors to possibly slip in. Furthermore, for those crazies that question whether reason itself is valid, the Popularians have an answer! It's popular to think that if God exists, he would create the Popularians with reliable reason. And since it's popular, it must be true! So the Popularians' reason must be reliable.

But we, from the side, know there is an error in the populogical argument. The argument commits a logical fallacy - an appeal to popularity. This means the Popularians' reason is not reliable, God or no. But the very fact that their reasoning is unreliable makes them unable to find the flaws in their proofs of their reasoning being reliable!

The Point

So what's the point of our visit to Planet Populon? It's simple. How do we know we are not like the Popularians?

If our reason was unreliable, and there was some fallacy we were incapable of noticing or some rule of logic we were missing, then all of our arguments would be moot. No matter how hard we worked to prove that the sky is blue, or that God exists, or that our reasoning was reliable, it would be pointless, because the very reason we used to tell the good arguments from the bad would be misfiring. And there's no way to prove we'd know if this was the case - after all, to prove that, we need to assume reason is reliable in our proof! It is impossible to prove that reason is reliable, because you need to use reason to do so.

So what does this have to do with the argument from reason? Well remember, the argument from reason was an argument targeted at naturalism. It said that naturalism must be false, because it implies our reason can't be trusted. But the Popularians don't believe in naturalism, and their reasoning still can't be trusted! It turns out, you can never prove your reason is trustworthy. No matter your worldview, you must assume your reason is reliable in order to make any argument at all.

This is the flaw! The argument from reason doesn't say that "reason is unreliable", it states that "reason is unreliable under a naturalistic worldview".  And that's because a naturalistic brain is constrained by the physical laws. Every human action, including thoughts, is the result of the physical laws. The laws of logic play zero part in the thinking process.  

This means that the argument from reason succeeds not just against naturalism, but against any worldview! For example, here's the argument again, but directed at theism this time.

If we claim theism is true, then we and everything we are is the result of supernatural, mindful, rational forces acting without any purpose.

Strawman argument - a logical fallacy where someone misrepresents, exaggerates, or distorts an opponent's actual argument to make it easier to attack, creating a weak "straw man" version to knock down instead of the real, stronger position, thereby appearing to win the debate without addressing the core issue. It's a deceptive tactic in debates, often involving oversimplification or taking words out of context, to make one's own stance seem superior.

I do not argue, nor do I know of any Christian who argues for a "supernatural, mindful, rational forces acting without any purpose"

If we are the result of rational forces, there is no reason to think that they would produce humans with an ability to use reliable reason.

Therefore, we have no reason to trust our own reasoning, and so we can't trust the reasoning that led us to theism.

A theist might object and say, "of course we have reason to think rational forces would produce rational minds!" But this time we can smirk, push up our glasses, and say, "Oh? And how exactly do you know rational forces would produce rational minds? Did you use reason to conclude that?" Once again, any argument you use to show that human reason is reliable under theism is itself based on that same reason 

A theist might object and say, "of course we have reason to think rational forces would produce rational minds!" But this time we can smirk, push up our glasses, and say, "Oh? And how exactly do you know rational forces would produce rational minds? Did you use reason to conclude that?" Once again, any argument you use to show that human reason is reliable under theism is itself based on that same reason.

Notice a parallel here. It's quite reasonable to think that we can trust our reason under theism - after all, we can propose a simple mechanism for it (God made it that way). Just as before, it was quite reasonable to think that we can trust our reason under naturalism - after all, we can propose a simple mechanism for it (evolution made it that way). But in both cases, establishing these mechanisms relies on our reason, so ends up being circular. 

Under a theistic worldview, human reasoning is not viewed as a mere evolutionary byproduct for survival but as a reflection of a divine mind.

In this framework, the ability to think logically is often treated as a "gift" or an "imprint" of the Creator, ensuring that the human mind is attuned to the structure of the universe. This perspective changes why we trust our thoughts and how we use them.

The central premise of theistic reasoning (particularly in the Abrahamic traditions) is the concept of Imago Dei—that humans are created in the "image of God."

Since God is viewed as the ultimate rational being (the Logos), creating humans in His image implies endowing them with a "spark" of that rationality. This gives humans the unique ability to step beyond instinct (like animals) and engage in abstract thought, mathematics, and moral judgment. We reason because we are "mini-reasoners" modeled after the "Great Reasoner."

In a theistic worldview, the laws of logic (like A cannot be non-A) are not arbitrary rules invented by humans, nor are they rules that God simply "decided" to create. Instead, they are believed to be reflections of God's own nature.

Because God is consistent and cannot lie or contradict Himself, the universe He created operates on consistent, non-contradictory laws. When humans use logic, they are not inventing a tool; they are discovering the fabric of reality. To reason correctly is to think God's thoughts after Him.

Since a rational God designed the human mind specifically to know and understand the world, then we have a valid reason to trust our cognitive faculties. We can assume that our logic maps onto reality because both were made by the same Author.

Contrary to the popular cultural idea that faith and reason are opposites, the classical theistic view (championed by figures like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine) sees them as partners. It's actually atheism/naturalism v reason that are opposites, or incompatible. 

"Faith Seeking Understanding": This famous Latin phrase (fides quaerens intellectum) suggests that faith is the starting point that orients the mind, while reason is the tool used to explore and understand that faith.

 Theists often describe two sources of knowledge:

1. The Book of Scripture: Specific revelation (moral laws, nature of God).

2. The Book of Nature: General revelation (science, physics, logic). Since both books have the same Author, theists believe they cannot ultimately contradict each other. If they seem to, it is presumed that our human interpretation of one (or both) is wrong.

Theistic worldviews also offer an explanation for why human reasoning fails (bias, error, delusion). This is often called the "noetic effect of sin" or human finitude.

While the capacity for reason is divine, the execution is flawed because humans are imperfect/fallen.

Summary: The Difference

Feature	Naturalistic View	Theistic View
Origin of Reason	Evolutionary adaptation for survival.	Imprint of the Divine Mind (Imago Dei).
Basis of Logic	None.Thoughts are the result of physical laws not  logical laws..	Reflection of God's internal consistency.
Why Trust It?	Can't as it works for survival, not truth seeking	It was designed to find Truth.
Goal	To adapt and survive. Logic/truth not relevant	To know God and understand His creation/reality.

This is just how reasoning works. You can't use reason to prove itself, because reason itself precludes it. Reason an axiom - you must assume it to use it. But I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make.

Only axiom is Reason is the basis for knowledge

Conclusion

The argument from reason is too successful. It's an example of a class of arguments I've witnessed more and more in recent years, that I call "sinking canoe" arguments. The name comes from the following story:

The argument from reason is too successful vs atheism/natursalism, not Christain theism. 

Two men are sitting in a canoe. Suddenly, a leak springs in the bottom of the canoe, and it begins to fill with water. The man in the back stands up, walks to the front, carefully examines the other man's seat, and declares: "Yep! Your half is sinking!"

The format of the fallacy is much like the argument from reason. Let's say you believe in idea A, and want to refute some competing idea B. Take a general issue that plagues both A and B, change up some wording and introduce some terminology to make it seem specific to B, and then present it as a refutation of B. These arguments are so very effective because to refute the specific argument against B usually seems impossible, because it's not an argument against B at all. What really must be done is to see the argument for what it is: a general issue that rests on a deeper level than the contest between A and B, and that supports them both – an issue that must be resolved before either A or B can succeed, or must refute them both, but that offers no insight into which of A or B is the better idea. The canoe sinks for us both, and we must either patch it together, or both go down with the ship.

Sorry to tell you, but we are not sitting in the same boat. Since your naturalism cannot account for or give grounding to reason, critical thinking, or logic. However God can. 

So yes, your boat is sunk, not the Christian's!

The Argument from Reason

The Argument from Reason

Why the atheist/naturalist can't trust his brain

If naturalism (materialism) is true, then your thoughts are just chemical reactions in your brain, determined by the laws of physics. But if your thoughts are just fizzing chemicals, why should you trust them to tell you the truth?

If there is no God and everything is material, then the human brain is essentially a biological machine, Your thoughts are not produced by "reason" or "logic"; they are produced by neurons firing

The only thing driving the development of the brain was Evolution. But that is where the problem starts. Evolution does not care about what is true; it only cares about what helps you survive.

If a caveman hears a rustle in the grass, it helps him survive to believe "It's a tiger!" and run away. It doesn't matter if it was actually just the wind. [Plantinga's example]

Thus, If our brains were built strictly for survival (per evolution) then we have no reason to trust them when they try to do complex things that don't help us survive, like quantum physics, philosophy, or arguing about the existence of God.

This is the fatal flaw in the atheist worldview. An atheist uses their brain to reason, "There is no God; everything is just random atoms."

But if that statement is true, then the brain they used to come to that conclusion is also just random atoms. It wasn't built for truth; it was built to hunt, reproduce, survive.

It’s like shaking a box of Scrabble letters and having them accidentally spell out a sentence. The sentence might exist, but you wouldn't trust it to contain deep meaning because it was created by random shaking, not an intelligent mind.

To trust our own brain, our own logic, we have to believe that our reasoning power comes from a rational source.

If God exists (a Rational Mind), then He created our minds in His image, specifically so we could understand the universe.

The atheist, naturalist, critic cannot use reason to disprove God, because the validity of reason depends on God. As C.S. Lewis famously put it: "Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

*****

A common counterargument to this is to point to evolution. Evolution, the defender of "natural logic" will say, favors humans who can correctly reason over those they cannot. 

Therefore, there is a reason to think mindless forces produced reliable reason in us!

But they forget that in a naturalistic worldview, everything is the result of matter acting in accordance with the physical laws. Not the laws of logic. So, when the atheist cites "reason" or a "reasonable conclusion", it really just the result of an unintelligent, mindless, material process that follows the physical laws, not logic/reason. 

But what of the Theist? She is not bound by the natural or by the physical laws. Thus, that which constrains the atheist/naturalist brain does not do so to the Theist. The Theist is free from the bounds of the physical and can engage in critical thinking as governed by the laws of logic. 

Is the Argument from Reason is Too Successful For its Own Good?

A test for Atheists

Ask the atheist, On a scale of 1-4, how confident are you that there is no God?

By “God,” I mean the perfect being of Christianity. Though one could just refer to Theism in general: a being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness as creator and ruler of the universe.

1. Not confident, but there is enough evidence against God to justify my unbelief.
2. Somewhat confident; there is enough evidence to justify my unbelief and to make theists seriously consider giving up belief in God, too.
3. Very confident; there is enough evidence such that everyone lacks justification for belief in God.
4. Extremely confident; near certainty; there is enough evidence such that it is irrational to hold belief in God.

Now there is evidence. Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not. Does the atheist actually have a well-thought-out explanation for the world as we know it, or is their view is mainly complaints about Christianity/religion?

If the atheist answers honestly, you now have a starting point to question them. Too often, the theist/Christian is put on the defensive. However, this helps atheists to see they are making some kind of claim, and a burden of proof rests upon them to show why others should agree with their interpretation of the evidence.

Others posts on atheism

The atheist's burden of proof

Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

Critics say:

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that God exist.

You can delude yourself, but deep down you know it's not real.

That is all true, but you can decide to fairly evaluate the facts, evidence, and arguments to evaluate questions like:

1) Is reason the basis for all knowledge? If not reason, then what is it? Can you defend this sans reason?

2) Do you acknowledge that the inference to the best explanation is how most if not all field of inquiry gain knowledge? Meaning, the hypothesis or theory that best explains all [or most] of the data is held to be true.

 
3) What is reality, and how do you know?

4) What best explains the origin of physical reality?

5) What best explains the origin of information in DNA?

6) What best explains human reasoning?

7) What best explains morality?

8) Is there one hypothesis that best explains all of those questions?

One explanation would be a rational, extremely powerful, intelligent designer, moral person, existing outside the physical part of reality. What most would call God. 

What is the naturalistic explanation for all of those things above?