- Purpose — Atheism cannot perceive an ultimate purpose for humankind and the universe. Without God, no ultimate purpose exists. Without God, humanity would eventually cease to exist, the stars would go dark, the universe would become cold, and the galaxies would drift into space forever. The universe alone gives no purpose to life. However, the universe is anthropic — intelligible by humanity. The universe allows the existence of conscience intelligent life to observe the universe. Why? Life’s purpose is beyond the universe and its very beginning. The best explanation for the ultimate purpose of life comes from its origin — from its Creator.
- Morality — Atheism is limitless in moral boundaries, and thereby, people can invent their own morality. Societies and individuals can set their own moral definitions and limits apart from an objective standard. However, most people live by some sense of fairness that they expect others to share and already to know. Because people can corrupt their moral consciences, humanity needs an objective moral standard as a corrective. However, atheism denies the only plausible objective standard for morality. Secularism can only develop subjective morality from either society, instinct, or self. Subjective morality is self-centered by definition while objective morality is selfless. Without God, there are no objective moral values. However, objective moral values exist. Therefore, God exists. Behaviors exist that are absolutely right or wrong. Abuse, murder, rape, theft, and slander are always wrong. God is the objective moral standard and His revelation is the moral corrective for humanity.
- Motives — Atheistic worldviews are not bound by sincere and honest motives. Only according to self-interest can the atheist set standard for accurately reporting of facts. Without an objective moral corrective, subjective morality alone thrives in secularism and set according to oneself. Secularism ignores God and atheism denies that God is the only plausible moral corrective. Subjective motives allows people to set their own morals. Subjective morality allows people to invest in their self-interests, potentially meaningless ventures, and destructive innovations for the purposes of euthanasia, infanticide, and genocide. However, humanity’s universal sense of fairness demonstrates a transcendent moral corrective for motives. The conscience and innate morality compels humanity toward respecting life, acting with compassion, and saving lives. The only objective standard and best explanation for morality is God. Secularism claims unbiased neutrality, yet excludes God as the Source of all of goodness. Any person who reinterprets God reality to reject God is acting dishonestly. Neutrality cannot dismiss the Creator and remain honest.
- Virtue — Secularism cannot define love or any virtue as the basis of morality. Secularism cannot explain the origin of constant virtues or account for how such moral principles could exist without a person to possess these virtues. Atheism implies that love did not always exist and that no person always existed to possess the virtue of love. The atheistic position holds that one loves others through survival instinct and, or social construct. However, the conscience observes that virtues do not change, but virtues are constant and require that some person always exist and possess such virtues. Therefore, God exists as the Begin who always exists and always possesses virtue. Furthermore, virtue can neither be greater than God nor have been contrived by God, but must exist as a part of the eternal nature of God. The Christian view of the triune God can love eternally in three Persons of Father, Son, and Spirit beyond human and angelic existence.
- Rights — Secularism disregards and atheism undermines humanity’s equality and unalienable rights. If there is no Creator, there are no unalienable rights. Without God, people would have invented alienable rights. However, humanity’s universal sense of fairness establishes the existence of certain unalienable rights — objective moral behavior toward others. These rights are entitlements that people owe to others. Human rights exist according to constant virtues and objective morality. Unalienable rights require the existence of the Creator as the moral standard. Secularism ignores that God made humanity in His likeness and so secularism sets human value as another product of nature. Furthermore. secularism does not recognize faith in God and thus cannot defend the rights and liberty of others who believe they are “under God.” Atheism disregards that people trust in the Creator, and thus atheism is impotent to comprehend, regard, and defend religious liberties. Atheism undermines the human conviction to stand for life and liberty.
- Reason — Atheistic thinking hinders individuals from reasoning beyond assumptions of naturalism. Naturalism presupposes that all things exists via nature. Likewise, scientism asserts that science is the only reliable way to know something, yet science cannot prove science without circular reasoning by first assuming science is reliable. Science also presupposes logic, yet science cannot prove logic. People use reason without considering the origin of reason. How can the laws of logic exist outside the mind? The laws of logic cannot begin without building on the law of non-contradiction. If logic cannot exist without the mind, then an eternal mind must exist. Objective logic exists as an eternal constant and yet among fallible human minds. Where was logic before humanity? Objective logic requires an objective mind, which must also be constant and eternal. Furthermore, if cognitive ability is reliable, then cognitive ability must result from design. If cognitive ability does not result from design, then one must suppose that cognitive ability came through survival and is susceptible to lies that are necessary for survival. Therefore, if cognitive functions evolved, people most probably accept some lies needed for survival. For this reason, naturalists cannot trust one’s own rationality, brain, mind, and thoughts. Cognitive ability is only reliable when the mind is from design and God is the Creator. One’s perception of reality cannot prove one’s perception of reality is true.
- Causation — Atheistic thought detaches thinking from self-evident truths of the Creator. Naturalism cannot explain the necessity of the existence of the universe. Causation and the beginning of the expansion of the universe. Thereby, naturalism hinders the study of causation in cosmology. Naturalists usually reject the cause of the universe that must transcend the universe with greater power and creative ability. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Furthermore, everything in the universe began to exist and thus the universe began. Because the universe is expanding and its usable energy is decreasing, the universe had a beginning. Therefore, since the universe began, the universe must have a cause. That cause must extend beyond the universe and must be supernatural.
- Science — Secularism bypasses the definition of science, which is “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation” (M-W.com). Naturalism asserts an explanation without observation for abiogenesis and evolution of family phyla. However, the lack of observation and experiments cannot support and explain origin of the universe and life. By definition, abiogenesis and evolution of familiae is not science but mere possibilities based on a contrived paradigm. In other words, naturalism does not stand on science but on an atheistic worldview. Truly, observations indicate a beginning and a cause to the order of the universe and life. Furthermore, naturalism includes very little about why biology is more complex than human design. The best explanation for any system more complex than design is that it is a product of design. Biology is more complex than human design. Therefore, the best explanation for biology is that it is a product of design. Furthermore, the best explanation for science is that God created the universe and its life.
- Compatibility — Secular “science” observes and recognizes the fine-tuning of cosmological constants that allow life to exist, but secularism cannot explain the existence and cause of the habitability of the universe. Secularism cannot account for over 200 factors that allow life to inhabit a planet. Naturalism does not adequately explain the anthropic principle — why the universe is compatible with intelligent human life. The best explanation for an intelligible universe permitting intelligent life is an intentional order and design for intelligent life to observe the universe.
- Revelation — Atheists can envision a mindless multiverse generator but refuse to consider a mindful Creator of the universe. Secular thinking can imagine a being from another world causing the existence of humanity and yet exclude God from creating humanity in His likeness. Atheists can imagine a being communicating to people from another planet, yet atheism excludes recognizing God communicating to humanity from beyond the universe. Humanity cannot know God’s reasoning through godless philosophies. One cannot honestly consider God from an agnostic, negative, and distorted view of God. However, the Creator of the universe can communicate with His creation through language. Language consists of the complexity of design, and humanity consists of the ability to communicate via language.
- History — The secular worldview must interpret Jesus in a way that ignores God. Many unbelievers avoid thinking about how and why the first Christians came to exist. Scholars recognize that the first believers experienced appearances of Jesus bodily resurrected from the dead. They told others about their experiences of Jesus’s resurrection and that message established the church. These Christians did not perceive Jesus as an apparition, dream, or feeling, but they experienced and sincerely believed that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. Secularism limits a historical picture of Jesus even while admitting basic facts surrounding Jesus’s death. Furthermore, historians recognize that “the gospel” in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 is the earliest Christian tradition proclaiming the Jesus rose from the dead. Critical scholars like Bart Ehrman date this creedal tradition from the first believers in AD 30–36 (1 Cor 15:1–11; Gal 1:12–2:12). The earliest historical accounts record those who first doubted or opposed the faith came to believe by experiencing Jesus risen from the dead and that changed their lives. For critical scholars, this event is an unexplained phenomenon. The first believers professed the earliest Christian tradition that Jesus rose from the dead and so the movement began. From the beginning, the apostles’ case for Jesus’s resurrection relied on predictive prophecies, Jesus’s empty tomb, and experiences of eyewitnesses being with Jesus who bodily risen from the dead (Acts 2; 13; 1 Cor 15:1–11). However, many unbelievers lean on contrived possibilities to explain Jesus in history. However, an appeal to possibility is a logical fallacy. Inventing possibilities does not consider the best explanation.
- Reality — Atheistic thinking detaches people from reality. They cannot recognize, honor, or thank God while suppressing the truth. Working from the framework of naturalism, atheism limits a person’s ability to consider and accept facts. For instance, atheists defend their perception of reality circularly by their perception of reality. Secularism dulls the sight of a person’s worldview and excludes any greater reality. Subjective morality darkens one’s understanding and allows coveting and resentment to blind people from seeing the truth. Therefore, the only way for secularists to test their worldview is by personal conflict of conscience to recognize a reasonable view of God with conviction from the Spirit, repenting from sins, and believing the gospel of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. Repentant believers unite with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection through baptism (Rom 6:3–5; Col 2:12–13).
The Breath of God 
Scott MacDonald: “We should not think that God as a maximally great Being would not have made all persons in God’s likeness innately knowing what behavior is always right and what are always wrong.”
And yet we have psychopaths who seem to truly not know (or not care) what society’s morality says.
I think evolution explains our more-or-less shared moral sense.
“We ought not to think that God would not give an innate sense of fairness and morality to everyone. However, people have free will truly to love others so that a person can choose not to love and even deny and corrupt moral inclinations.”
Is there free will in heaven? I wonder then why no evil exists there. If God can create a perfect heaven, why did he have such a hard time with earth?
“People often expect others to accept the same sense of justice and fairness showing that morals exist innately and yet objectively beyond self, society, or instinct.”
I disagree. I see no objective morality. Shared morality or deeply felt morality, yes, but not objective morality (that is, moral truths that are valid and binding whether anyone is here to appreciate them or not). If you can show us objective morality, please do.
“Furthermore, God with transcendent knowledge would expect people to observe the universe and see meaning like God.”
See meaning like God? We clearly don’t see like God when we read in the Old Testament of his support for chattel slavery (Lev. 25:44-46), drowning the world, and so on.
“God’s nature would be the foundation and objective standard for moral values.”
The same God who ordered genocide and enslaving virgin women during the conquest of Palestine? I dunno—as bad as humans are, I think they’re better than this guy.
Atheism is not a default position because there is no evidence to support the origins of life or the universe nor can atheism explain language.
Hmmm, you’ve made quite a few equivocations and seek to make atheism more than it actually is. Let me help:
Atheism is the position of rejecting theist claims.
That’s it. Anything else is something else.
Another thing you’ve assumed (I think without really understanding that you did it in the first place) is that science should be able to explain everything now. That’s clearly nonsense. Science is an ever increasing body of knowledge that clearly can’t explain everything now. To put this in perspective, 400 years ago we had no idea how magnets worked, now we have a complete theory of electromagnetism. So what is we can’t explain everything now, science has a very good track record of explaining things…
Hi Matthew,
I see you saying that atheism is merely a claim about one’s perspective of God rather than any positive reasons about God existing or not in reality. Therefore, the atheist’s claim is not about providing any positive evidence that atheism is true, but denying God’s existence in any possible universe. However, this does not explain why atheists make claims to abiogenesis, evolution of genera, and multiverse as reasons for atheism. As you admit, atheistic claims are that science may one day fill those gaps despite the lack of evidence now. If atheism is a claim about reality, the concept should have some positive evidence rather than denying any positive concept of God in some possible universe. If God is possible in some possible universe, then God is more than possible but God must exist in every possible universe.
No, atheism is the default position (like the defendant in a criminal trial defaults to being innocent). Without sufficient evidence, you’re not entitled to accept a worldview like Christianity.
Have you gotten an atheist’s critique? There are many mistakes here. One that is repeated is the idea that everything has an objective version–an objective purpose, an objective morality, and so on. You can’t just assert this; you need to show that this is the case with evidence.
Here’s a place to start: look up purpose, morality, and so on in the dictionary. See if the definitions have an objective component.
Hi Bob, Yes. I have had some atheists comment mostly on Twitter. I appreciate your comment.
We should not think that God as a maximally great Being would not have made all persons in God’s likeness innately knowing what behavior is always right and what are always wrong. We ought not to think that God would not give an innate sense of fairness and morality to everyone. However, people have free will truly to love others so that a person can choose not to love and even deny and corrupt moral inclinations. People often expect others to accept the same sense of justice and fairness showing that morals exist innately and yet objectively beyond self, society, or instinct. Furthermore, God with transcendent knowledge would expect people to observe the universe and see meaning like God. We should expect people to see the value of each person made in God’s likeness. God would intend each person rationally and, or emotively to see unalienable rights such as life and liberty endowed to every man by the Creator. Furthermore, God’s nature would be the foundation and objective standard for moral values. We should not think that God would not communicate with humanity and reveal that God will judge all humanity according to God’s standard. God can and has manifested that standard in one ideal man whom God gave assurance by resurrecting that man from the dead.
Bob,
Atheism is not a default position. This is your belief. Please do not tell me what a default position is. Your own statement contradicts your argument. Atheism does not have sufficient evidence to prove origins of life and the universe. Also cannot prove language so please explain how you atheism is default position when you do not sufficient evidence to explain life. How can atheism be default position when your beliefs cannot explain any of those things.
Please don’t contradict yourself.