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

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? 

The Engineering Problem in Evolution

The Engineering problem

Stephen J Gould [one of the two scientists behind punctuated evolution] said in his book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory": I recognize that we know no mechanism for the origin of organismal features other than conventional natural selection at the organismic level [pg 710]

Here's a 20-min vid on how punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve the problem

Let's illustrate one of the difficulties with the fish to amphibian transition. There had to be changes from:

1) obtaining oxygen from water to directly from the air,

2) change from permeable scales to impermeable skin,

3) ventral, anal, and tail fins would have to go from steering to a) weight-bearing and b) to providing locomotion,

4) a two chambered, one loop heart system would have to transform into a three chambered, two loop heart.

And all of these changes had to happen 

1) in concert, 

2) on a molecular level and 

3) while that species remained the fittest for its environment. The genetic code had to change in multiple proteins throughout multiple systems within the fish, all at basically the same time.

For example, the Cambrian explosion, the unparalleled emergence of organisms between 541 million and approximately 530 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Period. The event was characterized by the appearance of many of the major phyla (between 20 and 35) that make up modern animal life.

As I said gradualism seemed plausible if there were 100's of millions of years for a system of hit or miss chance, but there is not; take that element away, as Punctuated Equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion shows, then design [a purposeful, intentional, guided process with a goal in mind] is the much more likely candidate than a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal.

This is part of a larger argument that can be found here

There is NO evidence for God!

I hear the "There is no evidence for God" line all the time from atheists and other critics, but I think that it's untrue; there IS evidence for God.

An analogy: The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the Steady State universe or a cyclical universe. It just means that the Big Bang Theory explains more of the data/evidence better than those other two. The same data/evidence is used by all three.

Similarly, Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not.

The data/evidence

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

2) Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent, thus 1) one cannot default to physical explanations; 2) we now have at least one reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable.

3) Our thoughts are not just brain activity, rather they are the result of an immaterial mind thus, we now have a second reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable

4) A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause solves the problem of an infinite regress of causes

5) the origin of DNA is more likely on design than chance.

6) The fine-tuning of the universe is more likely on design than chance or necessity - thus, given all the above, a transcendent metaphysically necessary God is the best explanation for life as we know it.

7) Jesus was a historical person, see also Bart Erhman, NT Scholar agnostic/atheist where he says ["no question Jesus existed"] since there are many, early, independent sources.

8) Jesus' resurrection was historical rather than a myth

Conclusion: Sans the presumption of philosophical naturalism, 1–8 above, and the explanation offered for each, offer a critical thinker good reasons to conclude that the Christian God is the best explanation for the world as we know it.

If atheists and other critics with "I don't know" or "I'm not convinced" then they are admitting that they do not have any explanations and tacitly conceding that the Christian has the better explanation.

If one has no better explanation(s), why reject the Christian's?

Objection A - This is a God of the gaps fallacy

Reply: I’m not citing a gap in our knowledge and saying "God did it". This is a series of arguments; first showing that reason is the basis for knowledge not science; second, that must be a non-physical aspect to reality; third that design is a better explanation for our existence and life; fourth that God is the best explanation for whom that designer is.

Objection B - The theory of the existence of a mind makes no predictions, thus there can be no evidence for it. 

Reply: It doesn't need to. You seem assuming that it must meet the criteria for a scientific theory, but this is a logical argument. See point 1 Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

Objection C - this is just a list of assertions based on your own ignorance, incredulity, and gullibility; that's not evidence for God. This is just "apologist goulash"  

Reply:  You are just sticking your head in the sand, refusing to engage in a discussion of the evidence/data/arguments. 

Objection D - You might want to post this on a Reddit sub where you debate atheists, not Christians. I'm sure the Christians here could offer some constructive feedback, though.

Reply:  In my experience: 1) there are enough atheists in Christian subs to get feedback/debate, 2) what I mostly get on when I used to post atheist Subreddits is derision and downvotes, no intelligent discussion. Look at the current comments on Reddit. Additionally, Christians can be edified, educated, and enriched with this.

Objection E - Your points/arguments are incredibly inaccurate

Reply: Which ones specifically and where exactly are the errors for each? 

Objection F - Is the universe really so perfect? It’s extreme and harsh. Completely inhospitable for life, with vast excesses of empty space. Is that the mark of design?

Reply: When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are life-permitting. By life-permitting, they do not mean that life can exist wherever, or whenever, or that it's a paradise, or that there is no suffering/death; they do not even guarantee that life will exist. It’s a much more modest claim. It only holds that the fine-tuning will permit the existence of life. That’s it.

Objection G - You misunderstand what constitutes evidence.

Reply: Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, archaeological finds, DNA, etc

DNA is evidence. The findings of neuroscience for an an immaterial mind is evidence. Fine-Tuned Constants is evidence. Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent is evidence

Objection H -  Where you see design, others see chaos.

Reply: What better explains the Fine-Tuned Constants of the universe? Design, or chaos? Why?

What better explains the multitude of DNA-based micromachines like the ATP Synthase? Design, or chaos? Why?

SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection I -  The problem with this is sooner or later we hit a brute fact. I say that the fact is there are natural laws that describe how reality functions.  You say, because a magic guy made it that way.  We can show the laws, testable, repeatable, and consistent.

Reply: First, you cite "reality"; so what is reality, and how do you know? 

It can't be Philosophical Naturalism since it's logically incoherent and since Reason is the basis for all knowledge this seems to be how we should evaluate arguments

And the "magic guy" is better understood as A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause 

Additional info

Atheist Engineer Explains How Reason Led Him To GOD (Part 1) [Video]

If God has perfect foreknowledge how can humans have free will?

What is critical to free will is not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Philosophers sometimes call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind. And from determined events that are outside their control.

Thought experiment:

Let's say Grace builds a time machine and decides to travel to the future and see what her friend Anna has for breakfast tomorrow. After she comes back to the present day, she now has prior knowledge of a freely chosen future event. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any inconsistency with God having perfect foreknowledge of the future and humans have free will.

Objections:

A) Let's say Anna changed her mind at the last second and decided on something else for breakfast.

The reply: Grace would have seen that, and Grace would know of that change. Remember, we are speaking about perfect foreknowledge of the future

B) The idea of a time machine is incompatible with logic and therefore not possible for even an omnipotent being to accomplish, so using it as an example doesn't really resolve the issue.

The reply:

A time machine may not be compatible with physics/metaphysics, but it’s compatible with logic. But it's not meant as the way it was done, but more as an illustration of how prior knowledge doesn't refute the idea of freewill.

The Inference to the Best Explanation

Offering an inference to the best explanation occurs when we conclude that the best available explanation of the current data is probably true because it’s the best addresses all or most of the data or observations. A little more formally:

S is a state of affairs; a collection of data, facts, observations, givens.
H hypothesis, would, if true, explain S.
No other hypothesis [A, B, C] can explain S as well as H does.
Therefore, it is probable that H is true.

Inferences to the best explanation are common in all fields of inquiry, including scientific, and everyday life. For a more thorough exploration:

Inference to the Best Explanation - Peter Lipton

Inference to the Best Explanation - An Overview

Pushbacks

We may be choosing the best of a bad lot, and that we have no way of knowing whether the truth is contained in our set to begin with.

Reply: Scientists don't claim to have completely certainty on any scientific fact, no fact from any field of inquiry does. We've gone from Newtonian physics to special and general relativity, and guess what? Einstein's work is likely to only be partially correct. Qualms with IBE on this account are off base. Abductive inferences [IBE] are used in every field of inquiry, including science, history, linguistics, and everyday life,

Explanations help us to understand why something happened, not simply convince us that something happened. However, there is a common kind of inductive argument that takes the best explanation of why x occurred as an argument for the claim that x occurred. For example, suppose that your car window is broken and your iPod (which you left visible in the front seat) is missing. 

The immediate inference you would probably make is that someone broke the window of your car and stole your iPod. What makes this a reasonable inference? What makes it a reasonable inference is that this explanation explains all the relevant facts (broken window, missing iPod) and does so better than any other competing explanation. In this case, it is perhaps possible that a stray baseball broke your window, but since (let us suppose) there is no baseball diamond close by, and people normally don’t play catch in the parking garage you are parked in, this seems unlikely. 

Moreover, the baseball scenario doesn’t explain why the iPod is gone. Of course, it could be that some inanimate object broke your window and then someone saw the iPod and took it. Or perhaps a dog jumped into the window that was broken by a stray baseball and took your iPod. These are all possibilities, but they are remote and thus much less likely explanations of the facts at hand. The much better explanation is that a thief both broke the window and took the iPod. 

This explanation explains all the relevant facts in a simple way (i.e., it was the thief responsible for both things) and this kind of thing is (unfortunately) not uncommon—it happens to other people at other times and places. The baseball-dog scenario is not as plausible because it doesn’t happen in contexts like this one (i.e., in a parking garage) nearly as often, and it is not as simple (i.e., we need to posit two different events that are unconnected to each other—stray baseball, stray dog—rather than just one—the thief). Inference to the best explanation is a form of inductive argument whose premises are a set of observed facts, a hypothesis that explains those observed facts, and a comparison of competing explanations, and whose conclusion is that the hypothesis is true. The example we’ve just been discussing is an inference to the best explanation. 

Explanation: The hypothesis that a thief broke the window and stole your iPod provides a reasonable explanation of the observed facts.

Comparison: No other hypothesis provides as reasonable an explanation.

Conclusion: Therefore, a thief broke your car window and stole your iPod.

Notice that this is an inductive argument because the premises could all be true and yet the conclusion false. Just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it is true. After all, sometimes things happen in the world that defy our reason. So perhaps the baseball-dog hypothesis was actually true. In that case, the premises of the argument would still be true (after all, the thief hypothesis is still more reasonable than the baseball-dog hypothesis) and yet the conclusion would be false. 

But the fact that the argument is not a deductive argument isn’t a defect of the argument, because inference to the best explanation arguments are not intended to be deductive arguments, but inductive arguments.  That isn’t a defect of an inductive argument, it is simply a definition of what an inductive argument is! As we’ve seen, in order to make a strong inference to the best explanation, the favored explanation must be the best - i.e. the most reasonable. 

But what makes an explanation reasonable? There are certain conditions that any good explanation must meet. The more of these conditions are met, the better the explanation. The first, and perhaps most obvious condition, is that the hypothesis proposed must actually explain all the observed facts. 

Commonly acknowledged criteria for inference to the best explanation

1. Explanatory scope. The best hypothesis will explain a wider range of data than will rival hypotheses. An explanation has explanatory scope if it

• makes fewer assumptions
• accounts for more facts or observations
• more details of causal relations are provided
• depends less on authorities and more on observations
• is more falsifiable (more testable by observation or experiment
• offers greater predictive power (if it offers more details about what should be expected to be seen and not seen);

2. Explanatory power. The best hypothesis will make the observable data more epistemically probable than rival hypotheses; an epistemic possibility is a statement that may be true given the current state of knowledge about the world. For example, "Given what we know about the weather, it might rain tomorrow" is an epistemic possibility

3. Plausibility. The best hypothesis will be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths than rival hypotheses.

4. Less ad hoc. The best hypothesis will involve fewer new suppositions not already implied by existing knowledge than rival hypotheses.

5. Accord with accepted beliefs. The best hypothesis, when conjoined with accepted truths, will imply fewer falsehoods than rival hypotheses.

6. Consistency: Is the hypothesis consistent with other established facts or theories?

7. Comparative superiority: The best hypothesis will so exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis’s exceeding it in fulfilling those conditions.

It’s Turtles All the Way Down - the Infinite Regress Problem

An Infinite Regress entails the inconceivable; an actual infinity. This quantity, in different contexts, yields different answers; many of which are in contradiction.

For instance, consider 2 + 3 =5. Thus, 5 - 3 = 2

So,

Infinity + Infinity = Infinity. 

Therefore; Infinity - Infinity = Infinity

However

Infinity + 0 = infinity. Therefore, infinity - Infinity = 0; but that's different to the answer above.

There are two major forms that the infinite regress problem takes.

Epistemic Regress: Knowledge is a true, justified belief. In every chain of logical reasoning, each step depends on the previous one (its justification) for its existence. For the sake of understanding, let’s take a step T1 in a logical argument. T1 relies on T2 for its justification, and similarly, T2 relies on T3, which again would require a justification in the form of T4. T1 will never be supported adequately, because the needed series of support would be infinite, and we would never have any justified knowledge. Thus, it has been proposed that reason is the basis for knowledge.  

 
Metaphysical Impossibility: This can be explained by taking an ontological example. Things in the external world are taken to exist because of the parts that they are composed of. These things (parts) must also depend on their own parts for existence. This chain continues till infinity, which many thinkers claim to be impossible.

Everything in the world has an origin. Something cannot come from nothing. Yet, something must have come from nothing if we want to be logically coherent . The idea of an origin-less universe seems absurd. Especially in light of the scientific evidence for it.

Those who propose an infinite/infinite universe, what do you do about the problem of an infinite regress of causes?

In other words, a series of things that are each ontologically dependent on the next; in this case, the singularity, the singularity -1, the singularity -2, the singularity -3....

How do we reach the singularity if there is an infinite/endless series of causes?

For example, if a giraffe had an infinitely long neck, he would die of starvation - even if he had eaten for an infinite amount of time - since the food would always have another inch to travel before it reached the stomach. So this string of infinite causes would always have another casual step to take before the singularity happened.

To say that "that there is no first moment, because every moment is preceded by earlier moments" is to be logically and philosophically hanging in midair.

Christians would say that God is a metaphysically necessary [efficient] cause for the material universe, thus avoiding regress problems.

Infinite regress can be a problem because it can lead to answers that never terminate. When people ask for justification for something, they want an answer that is compelling. However, answers that result in an infinite regress aren't rationally compelling

It’s more logical to believe in an uncreated Creator or First cause than an infinite universe. Why? Because If God had a creator [or a cause had a cause] who brought Him into existence, then we could ask “who created that God?” 

Ockam’s Razor - the philosophical principle used in science that suggests you shouldn’t multiply causes to explain something beyond what’s necessary - would suggest that we not have a regression of creators at all. The one who brought our universe into being is the uncreated one.

This isn’t special pleading for God. This is what the atheist has typically said about the universe; that the universe is uncreated and eternal in its existence. No atheist was asking “Who created the universe”? They thought the universe was “Just there,” that it was a brute fact. Although that conclusion is now invalidated by powerful scientific evidence and philosophical arguments. 

Objection - There is no problem whatsoever traversing an infinite chain of events. Every event on that chain can logically be reached. The only thing you cannot do with an infinite chain of events is reach the beginning or the end because those don't exist. Every event is logically reachable. The only way you could not reach your destination on an infinite chain is if you set your destination to the end, but that's because by definition there is no end and no beginning. Every other destination is not only possible but guaranteed.

Reply This makes no sense.

Let's say that the Big Bang is 0 and our present time is 14.  Yes, we can count from -99 to 0 and then to 14.  But first you have to get to -99, and then you have to get to -100, then you have to get to -101, then you have to get to -102, ad infinitum. It's absurd to think because we can count to 100 that the problem of the infinite regress has been solved. 

Theists are TERRIFIED of this CRUCIAL argument - Rationality Rules - A response

[Here's the vid]

The argument is that a perfectly Loving God who has created this perfect world would not create worms that eat children's eyes. Thus, a perfectly Loving God doesn't exist. 

Where do you get the idea that this world is what God intended? It's not, it's a fallen world. This atheist's error is presuming that we live in a perfect world. 

So this "argument", is based on a strawman fallacy - distortion of someone else's argument or view by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's position, it's much easier to attack their view and present your own position as being reasonable; but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. 

The fact is, that God created various forms of life according to their kinds, with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth (Genesis 1:21– 22, 24–28). This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good (Genesis 1:31; Isaiah 45:18). Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and "bad bugs" like the worms referenced are descendants of that which was non-harmful. We now live in a fallen world, and all creation “groans” under the consequences of our sin (Romans 8:22). 

Why would a loving God "create" a worm that destroys children's eyes? This is what is known as a loaded question - a complex question that contains an assumption or accusation that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with, or a question that has a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. 

The most famous example is: Have you stopped beating your wife?  Answer yes, and at best, you are a former wife-beater. But this is the tactic used; the question assumes that God created the worm in question. But, He didn't.

Furthermore, the question posed by those in the vid is valid; if one thinks that only the physical exists [i.e. Philosophical Naturalism] - and thus every event/action in the world must be the result of the interaction of particles in antecedent physical states, in accordance to the physical laws - how can they say that anything is bad or evil?  All actions/events are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process. 

So in their worldview, how can anything be said to be bad or good? 

A further problem is, how can they say that they are reasoning or thinking critically - defined as "careful thinking directed to a goal" [per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] if they have no dominion of their thoughts? They cannot make any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws; i.e. their thoughts must come via interaction of particles in antecedent physical states in accordance to the physical laws.  Again, all actions/events [including human thought] are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process. 

Thus, Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting as a physical-only model of the world cannot account for human reasoning - i.e. goal-directed thinking. 

Rationality Rules seems to assume Philosophical Naturalism, which leads to used two self-refuting statements; the existence of morality and the existence of reason are not grounded in Philosophical Naturalism. Rationality Rules used that plus two logical fallacies to try to refute Christianity.   So, FOUR fatal errors in one short vid - an interesting strategy by a You-tuber by the name of "Rationality" Rules. 

[this assumes that Rationality Rules is a Philosophical Naturalist - but given his vids with regard to miracles, it's likely true]

If atheists "follow the science"....

If atheists "follow the science" then all of them should be anti-abortionists because "Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96%{5337in out of 5577} affirmed the fertilization view" [1] and unjustly killing an innocent human is murder. But 87 percent of atheists support abortion.[2] Curious...

Perhaps there is some scientific data that challenges the life begins at conception view.

Perhaps there is an exception to the killing of the unborn that makes it okay.

That would be their argument to make.

Or perhaps atheists only "follow the science" when it's convenient for them

Sources

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/

The atheist Euthyphro Dilemma

 The Euthyphro Dilemma is usually formulated against Christians as:

1) Does God choose what is good because it is good,

2) or does God chose what is good?

For the Christian, neither choice is acceptable.

To affirm that God choose what is good because it is good is to establish an autonomous moral principle that has authority over Him

To affirm what is good is whatever God has said it is to render morality arbitrary

The solution for the Christian is a 3rd option: God is Good itself. Since God is simultaneously the source and the measure of all goodness, the dilemma disappears.

But the atheist has an Euthyphro Dilemma of their own concerning the source of their morality:

A common atheist view of morality is that human instinct/society has decided that human well-being [Or harm mitigation] as the root of morality. Both atheistic views of morality often require people to act against their interests.

However:

The Marquis de Sade an atheist philosopher, concluded that Nature teaches us the principle that the strong ought to rule over and therefore exploit the weak.

Friedrich Nietzsche atheist philosopher, said a healthy society does not exist for its own sake, but exists for the sake of a higher type of person.

Both philosophers chose instincts such as the desire to dominate and cruelty, which are the antithesis of the "human well-being/harm mitigation" morality. The question therefore arises: why should we choose a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over those of the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche?

To argue that our morality’s source is human instinct/society means that we have no reason to prefer a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche’s, since their moralities are derived from the same human understanding as today's atheists who should be aware of the fact that there are humans who do not have the same instinct for compassion as they do. So why prefer one morality over another?

Why should the human instinct/society be the arbiter of what is good? We look to history to see that it has been wrong in the past: Abolitionists held the minority view during most of human history, yet their anti-slavery philosophy is now almost universally accepted, except for the minority who continue to enslave people today.

If, as atheists assert, human instinct/society is the source of their "well-being or no harm mitigation" morality, a Euthyphro-style Dilemma arises.

The atheist Euthyphro-style Dilemma is this:

1) is a "well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" good because human instinct/society says so, or

2) is it morally good because it is a good?

If they say it is morally good because human instinct/society says so, then they run into the problem of those who feel/operate according to different instincts - aka Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade. Why well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" over Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade?

If we say it is morally good because it is good or benevolent, then we admit a morality is external to us.

Whereas theists argue that morality’s external source is God, atheists who wish to adhere to an external morality have the burden of demonstrating this morality’s external source.

I suppose that a 3rd option would be that which best helps humans survive as a species, but why humans? What makes us special? Why not cockroaches or rats or the tardigrade? If it's about well-being or harm mitigation, those 3 probably caused less harm than humans combined...

The non-Problem of Divine Hiddenness

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness [PDH] argument is to demonstrate that, if God existed, He would (or would likely) make the truth of His existence more obvious to everyone than it is. There are many different “flavors” of PDH, but they are all similar in that they comprise basically the same core: two idea that are supposed to be incompatible with each other: 1) the existence of God and 2) the occurrence of some kind of “nonbelief” phenomenon. I will be examining the PDH put forth by Schellenberg, since his seems to be the most popular at the moment.

Definitions:

God: Given that this is a Christian debate forum I’ll define God as most Christians do, as He is described by the Scriptures: Omniscient, Omnipotent; Perfectly Loving, Holy, and Just. God has other attributes, but for this discussion I think these will suffice.

Non-resistant- non-belief [NRNB] – when someone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of a meaningful conscious relationship with God, and yet (iii) does not believe that God exists.

The PDH argument The core of Schellenberg’s argument is simply that 1) God would ensure that there are no nonresistant nonbelievers, 2) but since there actually are nonresistant nonbelievers, 3) we must conclude that God does not exist.

This is how Schellenberg argues:

1) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God is also (iii) in a position to participate in such relationship (able to do so just by trying). (PREMISE)

2) Necessarily, one is at a time in a position to participate in meaningful conscious relationship with God only if at that time one believes that God exists. (PREMISE)

3) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God also (iii) believes that God exists. (From 1 and 2)

4) There are (and often have been) people who are (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God without also (iii) believing that God exists. (PREMISE)

5) God does not exist source

Thesis: The Problem of Divine Hiddenness [PDH] is not a problem for Christians, as it fatally fails on a number of counts:

A) it is faith/trust/repentance, that is important not mere belief

B) God has morally sufficient reasons to hide Himself from certain people

C) Critics cherry-pick data

D) the existence of non-resistant non-believers is unprovable

Objection A - it is repentance/faith/trust in Jesus – i.e. that He is who He says He is, and will do what He says He will do - that’s what is vitally important, not mere belief in God’s existence. God’s purpose is that we repent and come to trust Him [i.e. have faith] not just merely believe that He exists; that mere belief does nothing for our relationship with God.

Most assume that the word ‘faith’ is more or less synonymous with the word “believe,” but the Bible is careful to communicate that it is not. James says: “Even the demons believe—and shudder!” James 2:19.

Many understand the term repentance to mean “a turning from sin.” Yet in the Bible, the word repent means “to change one’s mind.” Paul declares, “I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds” (Acts 26:20). The short biblical definition of repentance is “a change of mind that results in a change of action.”

The book of Acts especially focuses on repentance in regard to salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). To repent, concerning salvation, is to change your mind regarding sin and Jesus Christ. In Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2), he concludes with a call for the people to repent (Acts 2:38).

Peter calls the people who rejected Jesus (Acts 2:36) to change their minds about that sin and to change their minds about Christ Himself, recognizing that He is indeed “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). True repentance is prompted by “godly sorrow,” and it “leads to salvation” (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Repentance and faith can be understood as two sides of the same coin. It is impossible to place your faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior without first changing your mind about your sin and about who Jesus is and what He has done. Whether it is repentance from willful rejection or repentance from ignorance or disinterest, it is a change of mind. Biblical repentance, in relation to salvation, is changing your mind from rejection of Christ to faith in Christ.

Thus, merely believing in God's existence sans repentance and trust in Jesus does nothing for one's soul.

Objection B - God has morally sufficient reasons to hide Himself from certain people. The basic idea is that many non-believers, would NOT come to repentance/faith/trust in God even if God's existence were not subject to doubt. And their moral conduct wouldn’t improve, and might even increase. However, immoral conduct in such a state of affairs would be even more immoral since they know that Jesus is God and every sin is now a willful violation, and hence justly subject to greater punishment. Jesus affirms there are different degrees of punishment – see Matthew 11:20-24; Luke 12:47–48; Hebrews 10:28-29; 2 Peter 2:20-22; James 3:1-2; Matt. 10:15 - in the next life. But even more importantly, our level of knowledge and understanding is, in part, the basis for this punishment.

Thus, God mercifully remains ‘hidden’ to limit their moral culpability.

Objection C - Critics cherry-pick data – Critics say, for this argument [and others like the problem of evil] that God is omnibenevolent or Perfectly Loving. Where do they get this idea? From the Scriptures or from Christian via the Scriptures. But there is data that is ignored. For instance, the Bible clearly states that non-believers are in rebellion and are not non-resistant.

To consistently use the Bible would be the death warrant for the PDH, for to be consistent, they would have to use all of Scripture to define God and man rather than just what is convenient for the hiddenness argument. The fact is that the Scriptures present a worldview radically different from that presented by critics, the most significant and obvious distinction between a secular worldview and the biblical worldview is the nature of man.

According to Scripture, man is not a morally-neutral being but is a sinner and in a natural state of rebellion against his Creator (Rom 3:9–19; Eph 2:1–3; Gen 8:21; Col 2:13). Man does not reject God because there is no evidence for God, but because man twists the evidence to justify His own rebellion and hate of God (Rom 1:18–23).

The critic cannot even begin to argue against the existence of God via the PDH unless he can prove God’s omni-benevolence, but the only option for that is to approach the nature of God from the Christian worldview [lest a strawman is built] but, this worldview is not compatible with the moral neutrality of humanity as asserted by the PDH, and thus an appeal to the Christian understanding of God is self-defeating.

Objection D - the existence of non-resistant non-believers is unprovable, since nonresistant non-belief is a thought of the mind. If I were to state, “I was thinking about taking my daughter out for a ride on my motorcycle,” how would I go about proving that I thought about that? I cannot prove that I am thinking such a thought, for the mind cannot be observed in such a way. Thus, those whom I share this information with must simply take me at my word.

If a believer approaches an unbeliever and says, “I know God exists because God speaks to me through my thoughts via His word,” do you suppose that the unbeliever would accept this statement as evidence that God does exist? Hardly. What if, instead of one believer, one million believers approached this unbeliever and made the same argument. Would the unbeliever then accept that as evidence that God exists. Highly unlikely.

Why then should we believe the testimony of a non-believer when they say they are non-resistant?

Furthermore, it seems likely that a non-believer would be biased towards thinking that they are non-resistant since this proves their stance that God doesn’t exist or that they are justified in their non-belief.

Thus, the non-believer cannot prove they are non-resistant, and they have every reason to be biased in their assessment of their non-resistantance.

Given the four objections above, the PDH is not a problem for Christians. Any of these four objections are fatal to the PDH, in and of themselves, independent of any other objection.