As we engage in discussions about the origins of the universe, life, reason, and morality, let’s explore some thought-provoking questions together. These statements often challenge naturalistic perspectives, inviting us to consider the implications of these beliefs and their potential inconsistencies. Let’s delve into these ideas with an open mind, seeking to understand and discuss them respectfully and thoughtfully. Here are some atheistic assertions:
- The Universe Originated from Nothing: The assertion that the universe came from nothing can be seen as self-defeating because “nothing” by definition is the absence of something. Claiming that the universe arose from absolute nothing implies a contradiction, as it suggests a cause without any prior existence, which contradicts the principle of causality.
- Order Came from Chaos: This statement can be self-defeating because the concept of “chaos” implies disorder and lack of predictability. If order emerged from chaos without any underlying order or laws, it would undermine the very premise of chaos itself. The emergence of order implies the existence of pre-existing rules or patterns, suggesting that some form of order must have been present from the beginning.
- Life Generated from Non-Living Matter: Claiming that life arose from non-living matter contradicts the principle of biogenesis, which states that life only arises from pre-existing life. While abiogenesis attempts to explain how life might have emerged from non-living matter, this hinges their “science” upon a plea to possibility which is a logical fallacy. If life could originate from non-living matter in spontaneous generation, life would necessitate a mechanism that violates the established laws of biology.
- Reason Started without Reason: The idea that reason began without reason is paradoxical. Reason, as a cognitive ability, is considered by atheists to have evolved through natural selection because it provides a survival advantage. To assert that reason started without any reason or purpose undermines the evolutionary explanation of cognitive development and the adaptive benefits of reasoning abilities.
- The Intelligible Universe with Intelligent Observers Came from a Non-Intelligent Cause: This claim is self-defeating because it posits an effect (the intelligible universe and intelligent observers) without a sufficient cause (a non-intelligent cause). Intelligence and complexity require intelligent causes, as opposed to any possible non-intelligent causes, which observably produce random or less complex effects. Therefore, claiming that intelligence emerged from a non-intelligent cause undermines the logical principle of causality dismisses the best explanation for the existence of intelligence.
- Morality Originated from Society and Instinct: If morality is merely a product of societal norms and human instincts, then morality would lack any objective basis or authority beyond subjective human preferences. This view undermines the concept of moral absolutes, which are universally binding principles regardless of individual beliefs or societal norms. Therefore, claiming that morality originates from society and instinct undermines the objective nature of moral truth.
- Jesus Became a Legend Who Changed the World: The historical existence and impact of Jesus on history and the world are well-documented. Denying his historical existence and the resurrection requires dismissing substantial historical documentation and eyewitness testimonies from both Christian and non-Christian sources. The resurrection of Jesus is a central tenet of Christian faith and is attested to in multiple historical accounts, including the creedal statements embedded within New Testament writings that date to the immediately after Jesus’s death by crucifixion. Witnesses such as the apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, along with Jesus’s female followers and His own brothers James and Jude encountered the risen Jesus. Their testimonies played pivotal roles in spreading Christianity across the ancient world.
Conclusion:
Let’s continue these discussions with an open heart and mind. Believers, these points can challenge atheistic perspectives, encouraging us to engage respectfully and thoughtfully with those who hold different beliefs. I encourage you to challenge the hearts of welcoming unbelievers to consider these questions and provide answers from their perspective.
The Breath of God 
Scott: “Is the murder of the innocent and the abuse of children absolutely evil to you?”
Nope. It’s just regular evil to me.
“What is your standard of morality?”
If you’re asking where morality comes from, it comes from evolution. You and I have similar ideas on morality because we’re the same species.
“Because you’re saying that there are times when the murder of innocents and the abuse of children is not absolutely wrong and always evil because some people at some time may have approved of these?”
I don’t think X is wrong because a poll said that most people in my city (or state or country or whatever) think it’s wrong. I think it’s wrong because of my moral programming (evolution) plus influence from my society.
“However, that is the exact point of people declaring moral absolutes throughout history because some people and some times have done what is absolutely and always evil.”
Again, look up “morality” in the dictionary. You don’t need absolute/objective morality to explain how morality works.
“The societies of communist regimes approved of genocide of 60-120 millions people in the 20th century. I hear you saying that within their social circle that was morally right for them and evil to everyone else.”
I think that was wrong; that’s it. I don’t declare it wrong for you or anyone else; it’s wrong for me. And that’s how it works for you, too.
“This view undermines the concept of moral absolutes, which are universally binding principles regardless of individual beliefs or societal norms.”
Moral absolutes? Like what? I see no evidence for moral absolutes. Pick a moral issue, and you’ll find Christians on each side.
Look up “morality” in the dictionary, and you’ll see that there’s no concept of absolute or objective morality.
Is the murder of the innocent and the abuse of children absolutely evil to you? What is your standard of morality?
Because you’re saying that there are times when the murder of innocents and the abuse of children is not absolutely wrong and always evil because some people at some time may have approved of these? However, that is the exact point of people declaring moral absolutes throughout history because some people and some times have done what is absolutely and always evil.
The societies of communist regimes approved of genocide of 60-120 millions people in the 20th century. I hear you saying that within their social circle that was morally right for them and evil to everyone else.
morality exists apart from God. Morality is a set of rules a society accepts for the common goals.
morality changed over time. In Western society we moved from a time where low cut dresses were acceptable, but you better not show your ankles!
A good story about the existing morals in a society and impacts is found in the book “Peace Child.”
Biblical morality is a set of rules given by God. One chooses wether or not to accept those.
Moral absolutes only exist by God. Judging the wickedness of nations apart from whatever they say implies the innate reality of moral absolutes (Rom 2:14-15).