Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting

Definition: 

Determinism, a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.

Examples: 

1) Truth cannot be known (If so, then how does one know this truth claim?)

2) Language cannot carry meaning  (If language cannot carry meaning, then what about this claim? Is it meaningful?)

3) Science is the only way to determine truth, or I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process  (Can science determine if that statement [about science] is true or what scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?)

The problem:

Justification [the action of showing something to be right or reasonable] requires some kind of "cognitive freedom" - you need to have control over your deliberations, over what you do [or don't accept] on the basis of evidence, reason, However, determinism [the belief that all actions and events result from other actions [i.e not you - so people cannot in fact choose what to do] makes this freedom impossible. 

Therefore, the person who argues for determinism, or is tempted to accept it, is in a weird position: their conclusion apparently undermines the very reasoning process they're using to justify it.

The Argument:

Philosophical Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists, and that all things supernatural (including gods, spirits, souls and non-natural values) therefore do not exist. It is sometimes called Metaphysical Naturalism or Ontological Naturalism to distinguish it from Methodological Naturalism. Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism

Methodological Naturalism is the assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural/physical causes for all events and phenomenon. From Rationalwiki - An online rationalist skeptical resource with is decidedly anti-religious, anti-theistic bent.

Michael Ruse an atheist and Philosopher of science in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism writes "It is usual to distinguish between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" whereby the latter we need a complex denial of the supernatural - including atheism as understood in the context of this publication - and by the former a conscious decision to act in inquiry and understanding, especially scientific inquiry and understanding as if metaphysical naturalism were true. The intention is not to assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but to act as if it were.  [p383]

That's methodological naturalism - assuming naturalism is true, or acting as if it were, in one's methodology.

Philosophical Naturalism holds that any mental properties that exist are causally derived from, and ontologically dependent on, systems of non-mental properties, powers or things (i.e. all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely constructed from or caused by natural phenomena). 

Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism - all events are physically determined, including human thoughts. 

To do science one must only presume that the universe is orderly, i.e. disposed in some order or pattern, or governed by law.

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge, since all epistemological theories or methods must employ it.

2) Every truth claim requires the laws of logic. It is impossible to deny the laws of logic without using them. Thus, logic reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality. In fact, everyone is using logic in this discussion, so it seems evident that all believe that logic is an aspect of reality.

3) All debates presuppose a reality that exists. Each debater is trying to show that their claims are closer to that reality or are best explained by that reality.

4) Critical thinking's definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. [source] Critical thinking is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed; an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

5) Under Philosophical Naturalism all actions, including human thoughts, words and deeds, are the result of matter which must act in accordance with antecedent physical conditions and the physical laws without exceptions.

6) 4 above is incoherent under Philosophical Naturalism; logic, reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality that cannot be explained via Philosophical Naturalism, since no one has dominion over their thoughts - i.e. no one makes any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws, as they must act only in accordance to the physical laws Note: Just saw this vid where William Lane Craig agrees with this point

7) The best explanation for the existence of logic is that there is an aspect of reality that is free from the constraints of the physical; i.e. not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. One's decisions are differentiated from natural events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.

J. P. Moreland in his book, “Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity" offers a perfect summary: “Physicalism cannot be offered as a rational theory because physicalism does away with the necessary preconditions for there to be such a thing as rationality.” If a naturalist wants to argue that rationality does not exist, they will be making two grave errors: 1- They would be claiming to be non-rational, and 2- they would be making a rational argument that rationality does not exist. It seems the rational decision one ought to come to is that naturalism is irrational, and therefore, false.

In Daniel O. Dhalstrom's Heidegger's concept of truth the author writes: There is, for example, a metaphysical sense of naturalism that Husserl deems self-refuting: the theoretical pretense that everything - including, preeminently, ideas and consciousness - is part of "nature", conceived as the ensemble of empirical facts governed by laws uncovered by natural science....The claim is self-refuting and a pretense because it cannot justify itself; 

Conclusion: Philosophical Naturalism is not simply less likely to be correct, it is logically self-refuting and is necessarily false since it cannot account for reason - careful, purposeful, intellectually disciplined, goal directed thinking as a guide to belief and action. Under PN every thought action is physically determined. Thus, the existence of logic is best explained in a reality where more than the physical exists - something that is not bound by physical restraints - which allows one the freedom of not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself.

As Haldane once said, “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

Either “reason” is merely an illusion of physics—in which case there is no justification for relying on it to produce truthful beliefs—or “reason” is something more than physical—in which case naturalism is false. If human reason is driven by mindless particle interactions, it does not necessarily correspond to truth. If we believe reason corresponds to truth, we cannot also believe reason is determined purely by physical means.

No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

Objection A: We live in a natural world. There is no supernatural. Deal with it

Reply: Yes, we live in a natural world, that's not the question. Which is, is reality encompassed by just the natural world?  Given the above argument, that's not likely. 

Objection B: Naturalism is not a presumption. Its induction. If you have only ever seen white swans, and you have to guess what color the next swan you see will be, the best guess is white.

Reply: How does this show that only the physical exists? 

Objection C: this argument does not sufficiently demonstrate that philosophical naturalism is self refuting. So it still stands.

Reply: This is an assertion. It can be, and should be, lopped off with Hitchens's razor: what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. If you have an argument, please provide it. 

Objection D: Quantum Mechanics shows that the world/universe that is just physical isn't necessarily deterministic

Reply: While that is true, it hardly solves the problem of grounding rational, logical, goal-oriented thoughts in a physical world where there are only determined thoughts or random thoughts. 

A fine tuned universe

Within the context of a life-permitting universe, fine-tuning involves “the claim that the laws of nature, the fundamental parameters of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe are set just right for life to occur.” Robin Collins, The Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos: A Fresh Look at Its Implications,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity,  207.

In other words, certain physical constants and quantities exist within an exceedingly narrow range that favors the appearance of life.

This does not mean, necessarily, that the universe was designed but, rather, as physicist Luke Barnes states: “In the set of fundamental parameters (constants and initial conditions) of nature… an extraordinarily small subset would have resulted in a universe able to support the complexity required by life.” But the implication is that it is more likley to have occured via design than by chance.

Reasonable Faith video

 

Examples of fine Tuning

Even the tiniest change to any constants or quantities will result in a universe incapable of supporting life. For example, if the gravitational fine structure constant (i.e., a measure of the strength of the interaction between charged particles and the electromagnetic force) was slightly smaller, existing matter would have expanded too far and rapidly to form stars and planets. Hence, no life could have formed. 

On the other hand, if the gravitational value was too large, the universe would have collapsed on itself, and the stars would have burned out too quickly to allow the existence of life. Moreover, if the electromagnetic force did not exist, there would be no complex chemistry. The chemicals essential for life would be too unstable to allow proper bonding, and there would be insufficient carbon and oxygen to support life.

Alternate views

While some believe that the many observed constants and quantities seem finely tuned for developing intelligent life, others have suggested that there is no way to scientifically test the effect of fine-tuning since there is no way to adjust the values to observe the consequences. As physicist Sabine Hossenfelder stated, a fine-tuned universe represents “an observational constraint on our parameters.” In other words, our knowledge of fine-tuning is interesting but is of limited scientific value since the parameters cannot be changed.

The Fine Tuned Argument [FTA] claims that, given the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of a life-permitting universe is very unexpected given naturalism — that “there is only one world, the natural world . . . [which] evolves according to unbroken patterns, the laws of nature” (Carroll, The Big Picture, 20)—but not particularly unexpected given theism—that God exists. It thus provides evidence for the existence of God. 

Faced with his own fine-tuning discoveries in physics and astronomy, Fred Hoyle commented that, “a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (Hoyle, p16).

Virtually no scientists dispute the science behind fine-tuning. What they dispute is what it all means. Three popular explanations for the existence of a fine-tuned universe are:

1) the multiverse explanation

2) fine-tuning is a brute fact of a universe brought about by chance (i.e., single-universe naturalism)

3) the design hypothesis 

The Multiverse

The multiverse explanation of fine-tuning proposes the existence of a vast, if not infinite, number of universes with different initial conditions or fundamental boundaries of physics and perhaps even different laws of nature. If there were an endless system of universes, we could expect that at least one universe would be structured to support intelligent “observers.” Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised to find human-like life forms or other embodied conscious agents somewhere in a multiverse. In this scenario, we were randomly selected to live in a universe that supports life.

Evaluation: One problem with the multiverse hypothesis is that NO scientific evidence supports it. None. If multiple universes exist, they are unobservable—without observation and testing, there is no way to generate scientific evidence to support a multiverse hypothesis. One cannot test a hypothesis when no data is forthcoming.

According to physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, any universes outside our own would be “causally disconnected from us.” and “The vast majority of multiverse ideas are presently untestable, and will remain so eternally.” Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, p 101-107

As a result, the multiverse explanation is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a philosophical (metaphysical) one. Philosophical questions such as this lie outside the purview of traditional scientific methods and must be justified in some other way.

Advocates of the multiverse often posit a "universe-generating" mechanism to explain the origin of other universes. By postulating a universe generator, proponents think that it may increase the probability of getting a life-friendly universe somewhere in the multiverse. However, the speculative cosmologies that are purportedly responsible for generating multiple universes (i.e., string theory, inflationary cosmology) invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning.  Thus, the multiverse hypothesis cannot explain fine-tuning without appealing to some prior fine-tuning mechanism (either the universe generator or whatever generated the generator).

For example, suppose one tries to explain the design of a car by referring to the assembly plant that produces many similar cars. Such a description doesn’t alleviate the need for an explanation for the design of the car. Indeed, it simply points to the need for an explanation of the design of the assembly line that produces the cars. In other words, it shifts the need for explanation to the next level. The shortcoming of this approach is that it leaves one in doubt about the source of all prior fine-tuning processes and mechanisms and still leaves open the question of why these should be random rather than designed.

Thus, even if a multiverse exists, theism may provide a better explanation than naturalism. An infinite set of universes is better explained by an unbounded cause than a random cause. Since there is no good reason to believe that the multiverse must be randomly caused, and since the universe generator must also be finely tuned, a simpler explanation [via Occam's Razor] seems more likely: If a multiverse exists at all, then a single transcendent intelligence designed it to support life.

Single-universe naturalism

Philosophical naturalism [PN] is a worldview that asserts that the existence of intelligent life in our universe is the result of chance processes governed by natural laws. There are no design influences, only blind material causes. However, naturalism is unproven scientifically and therefore requires a substantial defense to warrant belief. And PN is also self-refuting. 

Fine-tuning is a brute fact

Single-universe naturalists claim that there is nothing surprising about the fact that we find ourselves in a universe with rational beings because nothing else is possible. Only in a universe that supports life can there be beings capable of observing and reflecting upon fine-tuning. Single-universe naturalists see life in the universe as a brute, inexplicable fact that requires no further explanation. Nobody would be alive to comment on fine-tuning if the universe weren’t life-permitting in the first place. Thus, the existence of human observers is unremarkable.

If one assumes in advance that the fine-tuning found in the universe is the result of chance, then any arrangement of matter is equally improbable (or probable), and there is no reason for one to ask why or how we exist. Naturalists who see fine-tuning as a brute fact say we don’t need to search for a deeper explanation: The universe “just is.”

Evaluation: First, to say that fine-tuning “requires no further explanation” is a matter of opinion. Undoubtedly, many people seek deeper explanations than are readily available. And to say that human existence is “unremarkable” is, at best, arguable. 

Second, to justify one’s belief that a fine-tuned universe is merely a brute fact, one must know in advance that the universe is solely the result of chance. In other words, one must assume the truth of philosophical naturalism. However, mere assumptions are not self-justifying. To prove that naturalism is true, one must develop and present good reasons to justify such a belief.

Furthermore we have reasons to conclude that  PN is self-refuting. 

Nevertheless, the assumption of naturalism receives no help from science because naturalism is not a scientific position; it is a philosophical one. To merely assume the truth of naturalism amounts to nothing more than a “naturalism-in-the-gap” belief. Thus, single-universe naturalism is a belief that requires one to put forth evidence and arguments to demonstrate the rationality of naturalism and that it's the best explanation of the evidence

When scientists (or anyone else) assume the truth of philosophical naturalism, they naturally begin to reject anything and everything that does not fit their predetermined viewpoint.  Many people take the side of naturalism simply because of a prior commitment since it's the methods and institutions of science that compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world. They have an unspoken, a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce only material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive. But that is not rational. The cure for that, of course, is reason. 

The design hypothesis

For many theists, it is unsurprising that the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life. After all, if an intelligent being wanted to create a world where intelligent life exists, it seems reasonable that it would set the initial conditions and physical constants of the universe to favor that outcome. A finely tuned universe - one that supports intelligent, self-reflective, rational beings - is perfectly consistent with a theistic explanation. It is a coherent and simple explanation that need not appeal to unnecessary conjectures (e.g., the multiverse) to support its case.

Theists (specifically monotheists) have historically believed that God created the universe and populated it with all forms of life including intelligent life. This has inspired many theists, as well as non-theists, to seek answers to the “how” question through the study of biology, chemistry, and physics. To theists, fine-tuning leads one to look for an ultimate explanation for the universe and its many features. In a theistic world, the Designer could have used any number of methods to ensure the establishment of intelligent life, including a fine-tuned single universe or a multiverse.

Evaluation: Like the multiverse and chance hypotheses, theism cannot be proven scientifically. In other words, the theistic explanation is not a scientific position but a philosophical one. But that's okay since reason is the basis of all knowledge, not science. Nevertheless, many philosophical/theological arguments favor theism, while naturalism has few if any, positive arguments. Therefore, the success of theism depends on demonstrating why it explains fine-tuning better than the other two hypotheses.

Conclusion

Although each of the three explanations offered is consistent with a fine-tuned universe, none of them can explain fine-tuning with absolute certainty. But then we know almost nothing with aboslute certainty. 

Both the multiverse and chance hypotheses are doubtful. Neither is supported by scientific evidence, and both lack philosophical arguments to support their foundational beliefs.

Nevertheless, the design hypothesis is currently the best explanation of the data - it infers that the fine-tuned constants and quantities of the universe favor the influence of a designing intelligence. And **the design hypothesis indirectly supports theism**, as this designer must be beyond the confines of the physical. 

Objection A - The puddle analogy is an argument against FTA as it compares a puddle to life, and any hole to the environment and its pressures. It shows that organisms with specific adaptations are well-suited to any environment.

Reply: The puddle analogy is refuted here 

Objection B - Design is unscientific,

Repy: 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 C -This is a God of the gaps argument.

Reply: A God of the Gap argument assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon. But I’m not citing an unknown phenomenon or a gap in our knowledge. I am using the inference to the best explanation and citing what we do know about the universe, in order to choose between design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] over chance [a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal] or an the scientifically unknowable [the multiverse]

Objection D -You can't apply Zeno's paradox to causal chains.

Reply: Per the [IEP] "...many of Zeno’s arguments turn crucially on the notion that space and time are infinitely divisible, he was the first person to show that the concept of infinity is problematical."

Where did I say that "space and time are infinitely divisible"?  Difficult to evaluate your objection since it's so vague. 

Objection E -You can't speak of BEFORE the universe, when time as we know it is a product OF this universe.

Reply: 1) I guess that wipes out the possiblity for any multiverse theory

2) Perhaps I spoke of casually prior. 

Objection F -Saying that "God" is the TOE is literally meaningless. It provides no knowledge or insight into the universe, it's just wordplay. Pumpkin soup is the explanation for everything. See, we call all assert meaningless things.

Reply: LOL, showing that God exists provides NO knowledge or insight into the universe?  That's totally absurd the the nth degree. 

Objection G - how can a designer create the universe without time, space, or energy/material?

Reply: My post is limited to showing the the best explanation is that the universe was designed, not how that design was implemented. This question will have to be addressed in a future post.

That being said, scientific observations are consistent with the idea that the universe came into existence out of nothing rather than existing eternally or forming from pre-existing material. Modern astrophysics has confirmed by both mathematics and observation that the universe is continually expanding; that space itself is expanding. 

An expanding universe must have a starting point. An infinite regress of causes isn't logically viable. While there are a variety of models that, at best, delay the problem further into the past, none can escape the ultimate reality that even the very substance of the universe had a beginning. These facts also negate eternal, cyclical models of the universe found in many eastern religions in which the universe has always existed. The universe is finite. It began to exist, and there was no matter before it. And every model of the universe must contend with the fact that there must be a starting point for existence. 

Objection H - What if the constants and quantities had to be the way they are? If their values are somehow necessary, then fine-tuning isn’t a problem that needs to be resolved or explained.

I'll let Wiliam Lane Craig address this: 

It seems to be pretty widely acknowledged that the constants and quantities in question are not physically necessary. This is because they cannot be predicted on the basis of current physical theory or any extension of current physical theory. Several years ago Stephen Hawking addressed your question at a cosmology conference at the University of California, Davis. Notice the alternative answers which he identifies to the fundamental question he poses:

Does string theory, or M theory, predict the distinctive features of our universe, like a spatially flat four dimensional expanding universe with small fluctuations, and the standard model of particle physics? Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe, than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe, is prescribed by an outside agency, code named God. Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle.

Notice that the options mentioned by Hawking are precisely the three alternatives which I address. Hawking argues that the first option, physical necessity, though the option most physicists would prefer to be true, is a vain hope: “M theory cannot predict the parameters of the standard model. Obviously, the values of the parameters we measure must be compatible with the development of life. . . .But within the anthropically allowed range, the parameters can have any values. So much for string theory predicting the fine structure constant.” He wrapped up by saying,

"...even when we understand the ultimate theory, it won’t tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the gauge group, or other parameters of the low energy effective theory. . . . It won’t determine how this energy is divided between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence. . . . So to come back to the question. . . Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not. It allows a vast landscape of possible universes, in which we occupy an anthropically permitted location.

In fact, this idea of a “cosmic landscape” predicted by string theory has become something of a phenom in its own right. It turns out that string theory allows around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that the theory does not at all render the observed values of the constants physically necessary.  [source]

Scientific prayer studies are fatally flawed

Why Scientific prayer studies are fatally flawed

Scientific prayer studies are fatally flawed for the following reasons:

1) Science assumes naturalism in its methodology - only the physical exists and therefore only natural explanations suffice.  source

Ask yourself a question, how many scientific studies seriously consider a supernatural causes to any phenomenon? Go to JSTOR or Google Scholar and look at 100 random scientific studies and see how many seriously consider anything but natural causes.

Michael Ruse an atheist and Philosopher of science writes in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism writes "It is usual to distinguish between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" whereby the latter we need a complex denial of the supernatural - including atheism as understood in the context of this publication - and by the former a conscious decision to act in inquiry and understanding, especially scientific inquiry and understanding as if metaphysical naturalism were true. The intention is not to assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but to act as if it were.

What I think Ruse means here is that a scientist can be a theist at home, but is the course of their work they must employ metaphysical naturalism. I'd ask what is the difference between assuming that metaphysical naturalism is true vs acting as if it were in the context of my essay here? I'd say None. My point above stands, even if I have to reword it to say that "Science assumes act as if naturalism in its methodology"

{As an aside, Philosophical naturalism - a physical only model of the world - is logically self-refuting}

2) Science works because the natural world is consistent; i.e. matter **must** act in accordance with the physical laws.

3) Prayer isn't a natural thing; God does **not** have to act in accordance with the physical laws. God is a person, not something bound by the laws of physics. 

Example: Water heated to 100 degrees Celsius for X amount of time will boil [at sea level] Given the above, water will boil **every** single time since matter **must** act in accordance with the physical laws. 

4) God's actions may take longer

5) God may say no, as God's purpose may not be what one expects.

6) Studies do not take all the Scriptural texts on prayer into account - they usually just consider the ones that say something along the lines of Matthew 7:7 - "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. Or cite no Scriptures at all.

The following are usually ignored:

A) Pray to the Heavenly Father (see Matthew 6:9). This condition to prayer might seem obvious, but it’s important. We don’t pray to false gods, to ourselves, to angels, to Buddha, or to the Virgin Mary. We pray to the God of the Bible, who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and whose Spirit indwells us. Coming to Him as our “Father” implies that we are first His children—made so by faith in Christ (see John 1:12). 

B) Pray for good things (see Matthew 7:11). We don’t always understand or recognize what is good, but God knows, and He is eager to give His children what is best for them. Paul prayed three times to be healed of an affliction, and each time God said, “No.” Why would a loving God refuse to heal Paul? Because God had something better for him, namely, a life lived by grace. Paul stopped praying for healing and began to rejoice in his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:7–10). Is this accounted for in any of the studies? 

C) Pray for needful things (see Philippians 4:19). Placing a priority on God’s kingdom is one of the conditions to prayer (Matthew 6:33). The promise is that God will supply all our needs, not all our wants. There is a difference.

D) Pray from a righteous heart (see James 5:16). The Bible speaks of having a clean conscience as a condition to answered prayer (Hebrews 10:22). It is important that we keep our sins confessed to the Lord. “*If I regard wickedness in my heart, The Lord will not hear*” (Psalm 66:18, NAS).

E) Pray from a grateful heart (see Philippians 4:6). Part of prayer is an attitude of thanksgiving.

F) Pray according to the will of God (see 1 John 5:14). An important condition to prayer is that it is prayed within the will of God. Jesus prayed this way all the time, even in Gethsemane: “*Not my will, but yours be done*” (Luke 22:42). We can pray all we want, with great sincerity and faith, for XYZ, but, if God’s will is ABC, we pray wrongly.

G) Pray in the authority of Jesus Christ (see John 16:24). Jesus is the reason we are able to approach the throne of grace (Hebrews 10:19–22), and He is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). A condition to prayer is that we pray in His name.

H) Pray persistently (see Luke 18:1). 

I) Pray unselfishly (see James 4:3). Our motives are important.'

J) Pray in faith (see James 1:6). Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), who alone can do the impossible (Luke 1:37). Without faith, why pray?

Even scientists agree that some prayer studies are seriously flawed, but please note that even the ones that they think are good, there is no way to verify that conditions A-J were followed; and if they were not then they are  flawed.

Conclusion: Given the parameters set forth in the Scriptures, and the methodology used, scientific prayer studies are 

1) arbitrarily attempting to apply a certain set of parameters to a Person to whom they do not apply and 

2) incorrectly using verses which seem to imply that God always answers prayers 

3) failing to use all of what God has said concerning prayer. 

This makes scientific prayer studies fatally flawed. The errors are both systematic and theoretical in nature.

Note:

Systematic Error in science - These errors in science are caused by the way in which the experiment is conducted; they are caused by the design of the system. Systematic errors can not be eliminated by averaging. In principle, they can always be eliminated by changing the way in which the experiment was done. In actual fact, though, you may not even know that the error exists.

Theoretical Error in science: When experimental procedures, a model system or equations for instance, create inaccurate results. How does one obtain the accurate equation for God answering prayers? Where is the proof that this equation is correct?

Objection A  - Science does not assume philosophical naturalism.

The response: You misread my argument, I said Science assumes naturalism in its methodology. - i.e. methodological naturalism; or as Michael Ruse puts it, science needs "to act as if  methodological naturalism were true. 

Was The Resurrection of Jesus Christ a Mythological Development?

An argument for the Mythological Development of the Risen Jesus is put forth this way:

1) The Gospel of Mark which is the earliest gospel contains no post resurrection appearances,

2) the later Gospels of Matthew includes post resurrection appearances, and

3) Luke includes more detail.

4) But only in the Gospel of John [which is the last Gospel] do we get doubting Thomas where And famously says he doesn't believe that it's the risen Christ, and Jesus says come and touch my wounds, and he touches his way and he said my Lord and my God and Jesus says you believe because you've seen blessed of those who believe that don't see it

5) the myth ends in a moral lesson to believe without evidence.

So, we have is this mythological development of no resurrection appearances and as the time goes on as we get further away from the source the stories get more embellished, fantastical, and preposterous, ending in a moral lesson to "believe without evidence".

So, we have is this mythological development of no resurrection appearances and as the time goes on as we get further away from the source the stories get more fantastical, preposterous ending in a moral lesson to believe without evidence.

There are major problems with this. 

The Resurrection as a mythological development idea is subverted by the early creed founded 1st Corinthians 15 while First Corinthians was written in the early 50s which predates Mark's Gospel and it contains an early creed that likely goes back to within five years of the death of Jesus

This oral creed says:

1. that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
2. that he was buried,
3. that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 
4. and that he appeared to Cephas, 
5. then to the twelve. 
6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 
7. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  
8. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Belief in the death, burial, resurrection, and reappearance to Peter and the Twelve in verses 3–5, are an early pre-Pauline kerygma or creedal statement. Biblical scholars note the antiquity of the creed, possibly transmitted from the Jerusalem apostolic community. Though, the core formula may have originated in Damascus, with the specific appearances reflecting the Jerusalem community. It may be one of the earliest kerygmas about Jesus' death and resurrection, 

Early kerygma:

• Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) p. 47;
• Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 10 (ISBN 0-281-02475-8);
• Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90 (ISBN 0-664-20818-5);
• Oscar Cullmann, The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 64;
• Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, translated James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress 1975) p. 251 (ISBN 0-8006-6005-6);
• Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol. 1 pp. 45, 80–82, 293;
• R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81, 92 (ISBN 0-8091-1768-1)  [From Wiki]

Ancient creed:

• Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90;
• Oscar Cullmann, The Early church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 66;
• R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) p. 81;
• Thomas Sheehan, First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986) pp. 110, 118;
• Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection translated A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977) p. 2 [From Wiki]

The historical facts do not fit well with the idea that the resurrection appearances are the result of mythological development over time as you move further away from the source, so that's the first problem.  They do fit well with the fact that Jesus died, was buried, was risen on the third day, and was seen by multiple people is what Christians believed from the beginning 

More evidence for 1 Cor 15 bening very early

The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]

Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]

Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

N.T. Wright (NT scholar [Oxford, 5+ honorary Ph.ds]): “This is the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at liberty to tamper. It was probably formulated within the first two or three years after Easter itself, since it was already in formulaic form when Paul ‘received’ it.” [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), 319.]

Many also speak of how early, in general, the creed must have been. Some feel the creed was “in use by AD 30” ( Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Geen (Paulist, 1976), 125.). Virtually no scholar puts it beyond the 40s (Gerald O’Collins, What Are They Saying About the Resurrection (Paulist Press, 1978), 112.].).

Peter May: “Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33). Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.” [“The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul,” (2008) online at bethinking.org]

The moral lesson? 

Critics say, John's gospel culminates with the story of doubting Thomas to communicate the moral lesson to believe without evidence. However, read the last two verses of John 20:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

This passage isn't against evidence for faith. In fact, this passage is part of the evidence for Faith. There are those like Thomas who saw the Risen Jesus and believed. But John knows that's not most people, and that's why he includes this account in his Gospel. We don't get to see the evidence (the Risen Jesus) and believe, rather we get to read the evidence (about the Risen Jesus) and believe, but make no mistake, both seeing the evidence and believing and reading the evidence and believing rest on a firm foundation.

So, ironic that people pick the story of doubting Thomas to show that evidence and belief are at odds. Since, John includes the story for one simple reason: to provide evidence for belief, as John puts it. These are written so that you would believe

Objection A - No matter how well they are evidenced, supernatural claims will never be the best explanation for any historical event, unless we get to establish some actual knowledge about the supernatural first. Call that a supernatural bias. 

Reply: First, that's not a supernatural bias, it's an anti-supernatural bias or a pro-naturalism bias. But, as argued previously, Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting, so we have good reasons to reject a physical-only model for the world and no good reasons to accept it. At least none have been presented. 

Objection B - By not rejecting the supernatural will unavoidably lead to special pleading in favor of the religion one is willing to prove.

Reply - Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the exception. It's a double standard.

The key is "without justifying the exception"; but I have justified it in the link above. Not only that, but naturalism is simply presumed.  In what world is one view, which is simply presumed true, favored over one that has a valid argument for it?

Objection C - How do you deal with the time between when the events happened and the stories were written? Or the time between the events and formation of the creeds? A few days is more than enough time for legends to develop. How do you know what was written was accurate to reality?

Reply - I have already addressed this issue in Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Objection D - The creed in 1 cor 15 doesn't actually go into any detail regarding what those experiences were, so it can't really be used to say that the resurrection appearances being taught in the first few months are basically what ended up in the gospels.

Reply - What detail is it missing? Death, burial, Resurrection, list of five different appearances are there...

Objection E -We know that a person cannot return from the dead, by somehow overcoming death. That would break the Laws of Nature.

Reply - This assumes that Philosophical Naturalism is true, but we know that it's actually a self-refuting viewpoint

If one is simply assuming that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then it can be cut away with Hitchens's razor - "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

If one does not claim that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then this objection falls apart.

If one does claim that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then they need to provide the reason/evidence. And need to address the argument in the link above. 

Therefore, we can safely say the following: Philosophical Naturalism is false and an objection based on that can be, and should be, dismissed

Objection F - You can believe in Yahweh specifically and still think that it is extremely unlikely that someone would be raised from the dead. Orthodox Jews do not believe Jesus was raised, and they are hardly naturalists.

Reply - First there are Jews who did believe that Jesus rose from the dead; for example all the disciples were Jewish, secondly there are Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah today And Jesus did fulfill the requirements to confirm Himself as the Messiah. Additionally, Jesus did fulfill the Messianic prophecies 

Objection G - So you have Paul’s 1 Cor 15 version [50s], then you have Mark's Gospel, which has no resurrection [60s], then you have Matthew and Luke gospels that include the resurrection. This is exactly how myths work, you just made a very strong argument for mythicism

Reply: This falls apart when one reads Mark 16:6-7 - And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” Mark didn't leave out the Resurrection!

Objection H - The oral creed says that christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. But can that be since Mark’s the earliest gospel.

Reply: It makes sense when you realise that it's speaking of Old Testment; mosy likely Jonah and Isaish 53

Objection I -  The Bible isnt evidence that the Bible is true. Thats circular reasoning and non sequitur.

Reply: The Bible is a collection of 66 "books" of various genres, written by over 40 people, on 3 continents over the course of centuries that the church put into a single binder, i.e. book. So, it's like saying "circular reasoning" becuse one cites an entry in an Encyclopedia to support another entry by a different author in the same Encyclopedia. It's an absurd objection

Objection J - How do you go from "the story was told at X time" to "therefore the story was not a myth"?

Reply: Since the Resurrection was told early it couldn't have developed over time

Related posts

1st Corinthians Was Written in the 50s

But I thought Christianity was based on blind faith...

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus of the Bible in ancient non-Christian sources

Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

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]

The Problem of Evil: Solved for Christians; A Major Problem for Atheists

Problem of Evil Formulated

Many atheists are fond of using the argument from evil to debunk the notion of God. It goes something like this:

• If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), He could stop evil.
• If God is all-loving (omni-benevolent), He would stop evil if He could.
• Therefore, if an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God existed, evil would not.
• Evil exists; therefore, an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God does not.

Another variation of the argument was put forward by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, centuries before the time of Christ:

• Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
• Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 
• Is he both able and willing? Then whence evil? 
• Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
• 
  

The Problem of Evil for Christians

Logically, this argument misunderstands what's meant by God's omnipotence. Omnipotence means that God cannot possibly be more powerful than He currently is. His power is perfect. But within these traditional confines, we acknowledge that God cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot, for example, will what is contrary to His Will. Why? Because that's a contradiction.

Herein lies the easiest answer to the problem of evil:

• God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good.
• Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (i.e. evil).
• God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil
• Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God.

The easiest answer expanded:

The Bible makes it clear that evil is something God neither intended nor created. Rather, moral evil is a necessary possibility. If we are truly free, then we are free to choose something other than God’s will—that is, we can choose moral evil. Scripture points out that there are consequences for defying the will of God—personal, communal, physical, and spiritual.

The existence of evil is often presented as an enormous problem for those who believe in God, mostly because it's based on a False Dilemma Fallacy God must either not allow any evil or God - as the Christians define Him - doesn't exist.  In reality, these assumptions miss the actual means by which Scripture resolves the problem of evil.

Freewill defined

"...what is critical to free will is not the ability to choose differently in identical circumstances but rather not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers 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. WLC

He created us with the freedom to choose our actions, and then extended forgiveness to us. Forgiveness, the release of the condemned from punishment is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Forgiveness is also different from excusing evil—it acknowledges that there is wrong to be made right. The Bible describes evil as something God allowed, but never condoned, for the sake of our free will. 

Objection - What about freewill in heaven - why didn't God jusat create heaven in the first place.  

Reply: Well, I'd argue that  God did create "heaven" first. The Garden of Eden was heaven-like. The problem was that Adam nor Eve never chose to be there or chose to follow God over evil. And apparently God sees real value in freely making morally significant choices - choosing to in follow or disobey God,

In heaven the saved will be elevated to a better state of being eternally than they are currently (Rom 8:18, 2 Cor. 4:17), and once glorified, will no longer have a sin nature throughout eternity (Rev. 21:4,27). The term "born again" from John 3:3 to describe our new relationship with God. Paul talks about the "new man" (Eph 4) and tells us "If any man is in Christ he is a new creation, all things have passed away, behold all has become new" (2 Cor. 5:17)

Jesus Christ, even though He didn't sin, still had free will.  One of the more clear Bible passages that demonstrates such is John 10:17-18. "I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." 

One can also point to the temptation in the wilderness in Matt 4 as evidence that Jesus had freedom to do what He pleased. What he chose was not to sin. Thus, the notion of an all-loving God is consistent with abundant free will, and free will is consistent with the presence of evil. But it does not necessitate the existence or practice of evil.

Back to the argument...

You may disagree with that solution—you may not see why free will is better than God forcing us to perform on command, for example—but it at least shows that there's no logical problem with the simultaneous existence of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God and evil.

So the Problem of Evil is easily solved for the Christian. God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil; after this God will wipe out evil (but not free will) from human existence. Those who chose to follow God will do so, those that did not, will not. 

The Problem of Evil for Atheists

If the atheist says that only subjective morality exists (i.e moral values and principles are based on individual beliefs, opinions, cultural norms, and societal contexts) then it is difficult for the atheists to construct a logically coherent problem of evil as rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide is just one's opinion, they are not necessarily evil. 

Thus, the atheists is barred from intellectually, rationally, logically condemning rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide, etc

If the atheist says that objective morality exists (moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations) how then does the atheist ground objective morality in their worldview.

But here's the problem with that: Objective morality is best explained by God. What else can give us moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?

This doesn't mean that atheists can't be moral people, as Christians teach that objective morality is knowable by all via natural law. 

No good definition of Good? 

The atheist may say that we can ground morality in the pleasure or misery of individuals; the atheist defines the “good” as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures. But why, given atheism, should we think that the "flourishing of human beings" is objectively good? Where, exactly, in the natural world do we learn this objective truth? Harris, as William Lane Craig points out, fails to provide an explanation for this assertion. He simply equates “good” with “human flourishing” without any justification in what amounts to equivocation and circular reasoning.

Science, only explains what “is,” not how things “ought” to be. For example, science tells us how us how to make an atomic bomb. It cannot, however, tell us whether we ought to use it. Harris believes he can prove his point by demonstrating that science tells us how to make humans flourish. But why is “human flourishing” a good thing? Why not "rat flourishing" Or "cockroach flourishing"? 

Harris commits the Is/Ought Fallacy - the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. Example: “That man is a murderer. He should be hung/punished.”  Let's say the former statment is true, but why would the latter statement logically follow? Especially if morality is subjective. Because Harris, and atheists, cannot ground objective morality as the term is philosophically understood, his only recourse is a semantic sleight of hand in which he redefines  the word “good” to mean human flourishing. 

Naturalistic Determinism

If one is committed to naturalistic determinism, as most atheists are, then they most likely reject the notion of free will as well. In essence, humans act in robotic fashion and possess no volitional control over of their actions. Richard Dawkins agrees with this when he states, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Dawkins, pp 133] 

So how can one condemn people for their actions?  Given determinism, one's actions were pre-loaded at the Big Bang and carried out by the inflexible laws of physics and chemistry. According to naturalism all actions are the result of antecedent the physical conditions of matter, acting in accordance to the physical laws. How can their be moral choices? How can there be any choices at all? How can there be logical conclusions? 

Naturalistic Reasoning?

The problem for Harris’s determinism runs even deeper. For if naturalism is correct, and human beings are mere matter and nothing else, then rational thought becomes impossible. Rationality is, after all, the ability to adjudicate between arguments and evidence. But how do atoms, molecules, and physical laws make conscious decisions? Years ago, C. S. Lewis recognized this fatal flaw. He remarks, 

“A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe. but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished.” -  C. S. Lewis. In other words, if atheists are is on naturalistic determinism, it follows that we have no grounds for even knowing if naturalism is true.

While atheists' attempts to affirm objective morality via naturalistic presumptions, they are fatally flawed as they have no rational basis to stand on.

Morality from Evolution?

Darwinian evolution is "descent with modification". This process of natural selection acting on random mutations is the standard view.  If Darwin was right then creatures scratched and clawed their way to survival, killing and eating each other. Natural selection explains sexual drive, hunger, and fear since these qualities aided in preservation. But how does natural selection explain the phenomenon of morality? 

Kin selection theory an animal engages in self-sacrificial behavior that benefits the genetic fitness of its relatives. For example, a rabbit might cry out a warning to her relatives if it sees a predator coming putting itself at greater risk, or may choose to fight/sacrifice  themselves. This sacrifice, ensures that the family genes will survive and pass on to the next generation.

Reciprocal relationships, aka “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours,” a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. Natural selection, therefore, favors the species that provide services for other species.

Evolution’s Failure to Explain Morality

If Darwin’s theory is correct, all living species descended from a single-celled organism and now form the different branches on Darwin’s tree of life. With this model in mind, who is to say that humans should be treated differently than roaches, rats, or spiders? Given naturalism and the Darwinian model, humans are just one branch of many. Nothing about Darwinism tells us that we ought to act differently from the other species in the animal kindgom.

Take the black widow who often eats her male counterpart during the mating process. Most male animals forcibly copulate with their female counterparts.  Do these creatures commit moral evils? 

If not, why would these same actions be wrong for humans since we all belong to the same tree of life? Atheists and secular humanists may wish to maintain that humans are intrinsically valuable, but they have no way of grounding this position given their naturalism. 

Evolutionary morality is on even shakier ground when we consider that evolution is, by definition, the unguided process of natural selection. Meaning, if we were to rewind back the time to the very beginning and start over, morality could have evolved quite differently. Human morality could have evolved so human females eats her male counterpart during the mating process or it's the norm for  human males forcibly copulate with their female counterparts. And the atheist and secular humanist would simply nod in agreement. 

Evolution  does not begin to explain why acting in those ways is objectively good. Similarly, naturalists also think that because they can discern morality means that they have solved the problem. 

but they confuse Moral Epistemology and Moral Ontology

Atheists, naturalists, and secular humanists may be able to explain the origins of altruism. And they might even "know" objective morals. But they cannot account for the existence of the moral standard itself and why humans ought to follow it.

The fact is humans experience a certain “oughtness.” They feel like they ought to love rather than hate, and that they ought to show courage rather than cowardice, they ought to choose honor, rather than dishonor. These “oughts” are epistemically surprising given naturalism. Yet, they correspond nicely with the Christian worldview.

More specifically, the problem is that is that there's no way to get from statements "how the world is" to "how the world ought to be" without imposing a value system. And to say something is objective good [or evil] you must believe in objective values, binding everyone . It has to be something infinitely more than whatever your personal values might be.

This is a serious problem for atheism, since atheistic naturalism denies any such universally-binding moral laws. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, laid out the problem like this:

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.

Therefore God exists.

The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that mortality is hardwired into our genes as an evolutionary survival mechanism.  A man might simultaneously be sexually attracted to a non-consenting woman, and conscious that rape is immoral. 

Why, from a strictly biological standpoint, should the man listen to his genetic hard-wiring when it tells him rape is wrong, and not when it gives him an urge to rape? The answer to that question is a moral one, and one that (by definition) can't come from mere evolutionary urges. The urges are the problem, not the solution. You can see this with virtually any sin: man both desires sin, and knows it's wrong. If both the desire and the moral aversion are nothing more than evolutionary conditioning, why listen to the unpleasant one? Why not act like simply another member of the animal kingdom, a world full of rape and theft and killing.

But for that matter, is it morally evil to go against our genetic hard-wiring? If the hard-wiring is nothing more than the result of random chance over millions of years, it's not at all clear why it would be morally evil to disregard it. Your body may also decide to start producing cancer cells, but you feel no moral allegiance to quietly let it have its way. 

And indeed, atheists constantly go against their genetic hard-wiring. For example, I'd venture that most atheists use or have used birth control and don't seem to find this immoral, even though it's transparently contrary to both our genetic hard-wiring, and evolutionary survival mechanisms. They're literally stopping evolution from working: a more direct violation of evolutionary hard-wiring is almost unthinkable (except, perhaps, celibacy).

So, evolution can explain urges we have for or against certain behaviors. But it cannot say which are worth acting upon, some aren't. Nor why. But to know which to obey and which to ignore is a moral question, not a biological one.

The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that objective moral values do not exist. Not everyone has the same moral standards. Our perception of what is right and wrong have changed over the centuries

If this is true, they cannot logically, rationally criticize the Nazis for killing millions of Jews, Or for the Chinese imprisonment of the Uyghurs Or any genocide, rape, murder, etc. 

If objective morality does not exist, the problem of evil breaks down. So when atheists raise the problem of evil, they're already conceding the existence of objective morality.

Objective Evil Exists

We can see that objective morals do, in fact, exist. We don't need to be told that raping, torturing, and killing innocent people are more than just unpleasant or counter-cultural. They're wrong—universally and completely wrong. Even if we were never taught these things growing up, we know these things by nature.

Incredibly, even the most evil societies—even those societies that have most cruelly warped the natural law for their own ends—still profess these universal morals. Nazi Germany, for example, still had laws against murder, and theft, and rape. They didn't have some delusion that those things were somehow morally good: it's sheer fiction to suggest otherwise. Everyone, with the possible exceptions of the  severely mentally handicapped/ill, recognizes these things to be evil, whether or not they've been formally taught these truths.

Conclusion

So is the problem of evil a problem for Christians? Sure. However, there are intellectually satisfying answers for the Christian

Is the problem of evil a problem for atheists? Yes.  If the atheists denies that objective morality exists, then any "problem of evil" argument falls apart.

Thus, in order to complain of the problem of evil, one must acknowledge evil. To acknowledge evil, you must acknowledge objective system morality. But the atheist/naturalist/secular humanist cannot do that. 

Objective universal moral laws is best explained by a Lawgiver capable of dictating behavior for everyone. This Lawgiver is best explained by One who we call God.

Ironically, the Problem of Evil lays the groundwork for establishing that God not only exists, but cares about good and evil. And humans as well, caring enough to die for them.