Search Our Site
Atheism vs. Theism
Introduction and Charges
"Atheism/Theism" vs. "Science, the Bible, & Creation"
Introduction and Charges
1, Deduction and Induction
2, Question 1
2, Questions 2 and 3
2, Summary and Question 4
3 and 4, Definitions
Acting as Mechanisms, Article 1
Acting as Mechanisms, Article 2
Acting as Mechanisms, Article 3
Razor and Conclusions
2 and 3
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 1
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 2
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 3
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 4
Life on Earth Imported from Outer Space
Circle of Reasons
God a White Crow?
There are a series of charges that Atheists and Agnostics
level against Theists when it comes to the prospect of logically
demonstrating the existence of a creator god. Atheists and
Agnostics reject the theistic notion of a creator god on the
grounds that it is illogical and scientifically unacceptable.
The following are a summary of the foundational reasons behind
Atheistic/Agnostic Charge No. 1: Theistic proofs inherently
rely upon inductive reasoning, which by definition, is an
invalid argument form, while Atheistic/Agnostic proofs rely
upon deductive reasoning, which is a valid scientific form
Atheistic/Agnostic Charge No. 2: Such logical constructs
for the existence of god always start by assuming that god
exists, thus, theistic proofs inherently employ circular reasoning.
Atheistic/Agnostic Charge No. 3: There is no empirical
evidence to support or necessitate a theistic assumption (that
god exists, i.e. that an intelligent agent was necessary to
bring about the origin of the universe and life.) All the
empirical evidence only necessitates unintelligent causes.
Atheistic/Agnostic Charge No. 4: Since there is no
empirical evidence to suggest or necessitate the existence
of a god, the assumption of god's existence is, therefore,
extraneous and unnecessary to explain the universe and the
origin of life and so, Theism fails the scientific rule known
as Occam's Razor and must be rejected. (Occam's Razor, also
known as the Law of Parsimony, will be covered in greater
depth during Question No. 3 below.)
We will now show that all four of these accusations are false.
First, Theism cannot be rejected on the grounds that it relies
upon induction. Second, we will demonstrate that logical constructs
for the existence of a creator god start, not with assuming
god exists, but with atheistic assumptions. Third, we will
demonstrate conclusively that all the available empirical
evidence forces us to conclude that intelligent agency is
necessary to bring about the existence of life in the universe.
This third claim is quite a sizable boast, but it can be accomplished
using a simple and straightforward approach that both lay
people and scientists will comprehend and accept the obvious
logical and scientific mandate for the conclusion. Fourth,
Theism does not fail Occam's Razor since the available empirical
evidence does necessitate the conclusion that an intelligent
agent exists and is required in order to produce life in the
Before we begin, let's clear up some terminology.
-"Atheists and Agnostics"-
So far, we have employed both the term "Atheist" and the term
"Agnostic." However, from this point forward from time to
time, for the sake of simplicity, we will include both groups
under the single title "Atheist" for the simple reason that
both Atheists and Agnostics deny a theistic interpretation
of the evidence. Thus, both Atheists and Agnostics have a
"non-theistic" or "atheistic view" of the evidence.
-"The Origin and Content of the Universe"-
From this point forward we will be using the phrase "the universe"
to refer to "the origin and content of the universe." These
two words (origin and content) are chosen in order to highlight
two specific aspects of the universe. The term universe, as
we will be using it in this article, refers to all of material
existence. The term "origin" refers to how and when that material
realm began. And the term "content" refers to all of the specific,
individual items and characteristics of that material universe
from gravity to bacteria to natural selection to celestial
bodies to DNA and everything in between, and in particular
the existence and origin of life itself. Or, as The Columbia
Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition defines, "universe - totality
of matter and energy in existence." For the sake of simplicity,
from this point forward, we will simply use the term "universe"
to refer to the totality of the universe including its origin
and content, particularly the content of life.
A logical construct, such as a logical construct for the existence
of a creator god, refers to a series of logical steps leading
to a certain conclusion.
The American Heritage¨ Dictionary of the English Language
defines "empirical" as follows.
Empirical - ADJECTIVE: 1a. Relying on or derived
from observation or experiment: empirical results that
supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by
means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially
Furthermore, The American Heritage¨ Dictionary of the English
Language defines the "scientific method" in terms of "empiricism."
Scientific method - NOUN: The principles and empirical
processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic
of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving
the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis
concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate
the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion
that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
In short, "empirical" is a scientific term referring to verifiable
or observable evidence, which in turn refers to those things
we experience primarily through the five sense (as opposed
to things like intuition and faith.) Atheists and Agnostics
charge that the empirical evidence does not warrant the conclusion
that a god exists. Conversely this article will demonstrate
the opposite, that the empirical evidence does require the
existence of an intelligent cause for the universe and life.