Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26:5)
Atheism is an irrational belief system that denies God’s existence. Proponents of atheism opine that life happened by random chance, and that people are just matter in motion. According to an atheistic worldview, chemicals formed in a primordial soup, which eventually became a living cell. Human beings are now evolved animals who are forced to live in a relativistic world that is in a constant state of flux, and where “survival of the fittest” is the law of the land.
There are many atheists who profess to be wise, but the Bible declares them to be fools (Prov. 1:7, 29; Rom. 1:22-23), since their assertions are not factual—they are fiction (1 Tim. 6:20-21). How can inert matter become a cognizant creature who can love, apply logic, have morals, and reason coherently? Without God’s intervention, it cannot—which is why the atheistic worldview should be viewed as absurd.
A profession of atheism is not an indisputable fact; on the contrary, it is a fallacy. Everyone is intuitively aware of God’s existence; therefore, there are only professing atheists. Without God, professing atheists can use logic, but they cannot account for it. Only the Christian’s worldview can account for the universal, invariant, abstract laws of logic, which are necessary to make sense out of anything. The atheistic worldview denies that anything can be universal, invariant, or immaterial, while simultaneously using the universal, invariant, and immaterial laws of logic to reason. This is one reason professing atheists have to borrow from the Christian’s worldview—apart from the Christian worldview, it would be impossible to prove anything.
Atheistic disputations over the existence of God affirm the existence of God. When professing atheists deny God or demand proof of God’s existence, they are assuming logic—which is not conventional, but universal, immaterial, and invariant. In addition, when professing atheists argue with theists about the existence of God, they are arguing about truth. This is ironic, since it would be impossible to dialogue about truth unless truth exists, which is something the professing atheist, who affirms relativism, will vehemently deny.
Professing atheists habitually slander God as a tyrannical despot, and they claim that His Word is wrong. However, they are only perpetuating their hypocrisy, since there is no such thing as evil and wrong in their relativistic and arbitrary worldview, and they are not able to prove that God’s Word is false. They are only able to beg the question, and prove that they do not like God. However, professing atheists do not reject God’s Word because God contradicts Himself; they reject God because His word contradicts them. It is ironic how professing atheists do not habitually slander Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or leprechauns. This is because professing atheists are intuitively aware that none of the aforementioned fairy tale creatures exist. They slander God because they know He exists—but because they love their sin, they suppress the truth, and act according to their nature (Gen. 6:5).
There are professing atheists who argue that knowledge can only be true if it is observed directly, or using the scientific method. How should Christians respond to this? Tell the professing atheist: “If knowledge can only be true if it is based on observation, how do you know that?” “Have you observed that?” “Please explain how you have observed knowledge?” This is a fallacy, since all knowledge has not been observed. According to Cornelius Van Til: “They are trying to put beads on a string with no holes on the beads. They have no universals to hold things together.”
Atheistic evolution is an absurd belief. If human beings are nothing more than chemical accidents, their brains are basically chemical mush that reacts over time. This fallacious belief is an epistemological nightmare since it denies uniformity, universals, and invariance, and therefore, rationality and coherency are impossible. This is why evolution is absurd and intellectually schizophrenic, since this worldview borrows from the theistic worldview and simultaneously rejects it.
Christians must argue from the impossibility of the contrary—that only the Christian worldview can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. The transcendental argument is not an axiomatic argument, since that would be begging the question. A super-naturalistic worldview is the only worldview that can account for the laws of logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, universals, uniformity of nature, aesthetics, reason, and the ability for the mind to understand the world. On the contrary, people with a naturalistic worldview cannot account for anything unless they borrow from the Christian worldview.