The Case Against Atheism

My interest in this subject being newly piqued, I thought I would lay out the reasons why I cannot believe in Atheism. First, I need to point out the fallacy I find in every Atheist with which I argue: confusing evidence with proof.

Before I entered law school, I was a fan of true crime. I'd read every book by John Douglas, and countless others by Ann Rule, etc. I still enjoy several true crime series on tv.

I always found one thing truly amazing: the convicted killer who maintained his innocence. In the cases discussed by John Douglas, I was (and still am) amazed at the way they rationalize away mountains of evidence. And the groupies who believe them! Notorious criminals often develop quite a following. But for people who had been sitting in jail for so long, they've had years with which to concoct explanations for everything.

They were also very clearly biased.

However, it highlights the difference between evidence and proof. In my study of law, I've found that courts have had to deal with this problem. That was the whole point of coming up with the standard of "reasonable doubt". Quite frankly, no matter what evidence is uncovered, there is always the possibility that it is explainable. Suppose that fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. It's possible that the suspect had a legitimate reason to handle the weapon before it was used to commit a crime. Suppose that there was DNA evidence discovered. It's possible that it was planted. Suppose there are witnesses. It's possible that they were mistaken. The question isn't "What's possible?" The question is "What's likely?"

Of course, anytime you have someone more driven by a desire for a particular outcome over the desire to reach the objectively true conclusion, there is a risk that unreasonable explanations would be accepted to dismiss evidence, because the evidence never proves that something is true. However, evidence can be used to determine what is reasonable to believe. It will never be possible to know with 100% certainty that Oswald killed JFK. Conspiracy theorists will forever make money by explaining to the gullible why the overwhelming evidence doesn't mean anything. But reasonable people can be reasonably certain.

While many Atheists, especially the more religious of them, believe that it's about finding ways to rationalize what they want to be true (the same as many people of other religions), I do not think this is true for all of them. And so I present here the evidence against Atheism.

1. Existence. The fact that things exist is evidence that they were brought into existence. We can be fairly certain that it is unlikely that anything was brought into existence by nothing. To this, the Atheists have two possible explanations:

a. The universe was always here. Matter, or its components, have always existed, just in other forms. This is the basic concept of a universe that perpetually explodes and implodes.

b. Matter did, in fact, spring into existence on its own.

The fact that these explanations are not beyond the boundaries of what is possible does not make them more reasonable than matter being brought into existence. Consider a computer program. A person who creates a computer program is not himself subject to the rules he creates in his virtual universe. Is it so unlikely to think of God in this way? Think of the characters in the virtual universe trying to impose their physical laws on their concept of the designer. What came before the great push of the on-switch? Some say that the program created itself, and some say that the program always existed.

It's much more likely, given our understanding of the laws of the universe, that it was brought into existence.

2. The universe's delicate balance. Anyone familiar with religious debates has heard this one. The universe is so unlikely to exist in the form it does, or even at all, that the best explanation is a Creator who intended to make things this way. Atheists have two basic arguments against this:

a. Given infinity, it was bound to happen sooner or later. To me, this really only highlights how unlikely anything other than intentional creation is. An infinite number of possibilities would include the possibility of a designer, along with every other possibility. That seems to me to indicate that it is more unlikely that there was no Creator than that there is.

b. There's really no way to know. We live in the universe we have. If the laws had been different, a different kind of universe would probably have formed, and they'd be thinking the same thing.

Now the second one is a compelling explanation, but it is not proof. We can only choose what we think is the most likely explanation given what we know. Our best scientific estimates are that the mere existence of the universe, let alone its existence in its current form, are extremely unlikely. Here, the Atheist typically says that any explanation other than a Creator is inherently more reasonable. But we know that reason isn't biased one way or another. It's not as unlikely that the universe was created as it is that it wasn't.

3. Argument from philosophy. If we were not created for a purpose, then our existence is meaningless. Atheists hate this one.

a. Ya, so what? This is actually the more reasonable of the alternative explanations. After it's all said and done, it is possible that the universe sprang into existence and we are here for no reason at all.

b. We can have purpose without a Creator. This is actually not possible, and it demonstrates the beauty of this argument for a Creator that Atheists try so hard to create an alternative purpose. Without a Creator, there can be no objective right and wrong. Atheists have tried arguing that purpose is found in what's best for society, or what's best for the environment, or what's best for the universe, or what's most efficient. They've argued that an individual's purpose is whatever s/he thinks it is. They've argued that purpose is whatever society agrees it is. And so on.

Now I cannot summarize every argument pro and con on this topic. Libraries have been written debating this. I highly encourage anyone interested to explore this topic more. Let me know and I can recommend some good books, both pro and con, worth understanding.

I'll briefly note that objective right and wrong cannot be determined without a Creator because our understanding of what's best for society/the universe/ the environment/myself/etc. is constantly changing. To which the Atheist says, "So what if our understanding keeps changing?" But, if there is a Creator, it's not unlikely that said Creator would provide instructions for understanding what our purpose is.

From there, the argument goes into how we can know which alleged Creator is the right One. But that's another post. From here it's clear that the argument that belief in a Creator is unreasonable is unreasonable. Belief in a Creator is more reasonable than belief that there isn't one.

The evidence has spoken.