Search Our Site
Atheism vs. Theism
Occam's Razor and Conclusions
"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?
Enter Occam's Razor.
Atheist's charge that intelligence is an extra, an unnecessary
premise that is not needed to explain the origination of life.
For the Atheist, the origination of life can be explained
sufficiently by unintelligent causes. So, the question arises,
how do you demonstrate that intelligence is an extra and unnecessary
premise? Simple, you demonstrate that the process can work
without it. In this case, you demonstrate that the process
of life originating can occur without intelligent agency as
a result of unintelligent causes.
But how does an Atheist demonstrate that life can originate
without intelligent agency? They cannot. As we have shown,
when scientists go to work to create any experiment to demonstrate
this hypothesis, so far it has been the intelligent intervention
of the scientists superseding nature that brings about the
Furthermore, since no one can go back in time to empirically
observe the origination of life on this planet, we are left
without any empirical evidence to demonstrate that life can
originate without intelligent agency. Conversely, because
of the ongoing experiments to replicate how life originated,
we do have plenty of empirical evidence substantiating the
claim that life originates from intelligent agency.
Or, in other words, since all the instances of life originating
that are available to us involve intelligent agency on the
part of the scientists, we have no choice but to induce that
the general rule of the origin of life is that it comes from
intelligent agency. And we are without any instance to challenge
or refute this induction. Put another way, while we have empirical
evidence of life coming about as a result of intelligent agency
or cause, we have absolutely no empirical evidence of life
coming about as a result of unintelligent causes as Atheists
and Agnostics claim.
The Atheist or scientist might reply, "But all of these things
we did in the lab could have happened without intelligent
agency arranging them." To which we would reply, "How could
you possibly know that? You have never observed it. As such,
you have no empirical evidence to support that claim. You
cannot know that it is possible. You cannot suggest it is
possible based on any empirical evidence. Therefore, such
a suggestion would be inherently unscientific."
So, far from having any instance of life originating from
unintelligent causes on which they could base their claim,
all that Atheists and Agnostics have is a series of hypotheses,
which have not been substantiated by experiments and in a
great many cases have not been tested at all and in some cases
have expressly failed experimental testing. A string of untested
hypotheses does not constitute a Theory. A Theory requires
that hypotheses be not only tested but also demonstrated empirically
through experimentation. So, at the most, the claim that life
can originate from unintelligent causation is a hypothesis,
not a proven scientific theory.
Furthermore, Atheists and Agnostics cannot object that Theistic
claims that intelligent causes are necessary to produce life
are unscientific because it is implicit in these SCIENTIFIC
experiments that intelligent agency is necessary for the origin
of life. These experiments, therefore, attest to the scientific
acceptance of the hypothesis that intelligent causes are necessary
to produce life.
The Atheist or Agnostic may admit that no empirical evidence
exists to support their claim that life can result from unintelligent
causes. But in an attempt to put their claims on the same
level as theistic claims, Atheists and Agnostics may counter
that because these experiments have not been successful we,
therefore, have no empirical evidence that life can result
from intelligent causes either.
This tells us two things. First, once these scientific experiments
do succeed, we will have empirical evidence that in general,
life is produced by intelligent agency. Second, despite their
lack of complete success in creating life from non-living
materials, Atheists and Agnostics have repeatedly pointed
to these experiments as proof that life can come from unintelligent
causes. So, in all fairness, the lack of complete success
in these experiments would not prevent them from providing
just as much support for intelligent agency as they previously
asserted these experiments provided for unintelligent agency.
(For a series of quotations exemplifying how modern scientists
assert these experiments as proof of life coming from unintelligent
forces, please visit our follow-up article entitled, "Proof
Therefore, since Atheists and Agnostics have previously offered
these same "unsuccessful" experiments as conclusive evidence
supporting their claim that life can be produced from unintelligent
causes, they must permit Theists to now offer them as evidence
that life is the result of intelligent causes. So, since Theists
can therefore assert that empirical evidence exists that life
is the result of intelligent causes, while Atheists and Agnostics
can make no such claim, Atheists and Agnostics must concede
that their own views are unscientific and must be rejected
by the same standards, which they previously employed to reject
Theism as unscientific and unempirical.
We have now refuted Atheistic/Agnostic Charge No. 4.
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.
As we stated earlier, the key to Occam's Razor is what is
necessary in order to explain the empirical evidence. Since
the empirical evidence does necessitate the conclusion that
the origin of life is the result of intelligent causes, Occam's
Razor cannot be used to disqualify theistic claims that the
First Cause is intelligent.
In summary, we have no direct access to the general rule of
how life originates. Therefore, we must employ induction to
make assertions about that general rule. We cannot infer a
general conclusion without specific instances to base that
conclusion on. Atheists and Agnostics have no instance, which
they can offer as evidence of life originating from unintelligent
causes. They cannot observe the origin of life on earth. They
have yet to construct an experiment, which does not employ
intelligent agents (scientists) producing life. Therefore,
we cannot induce any general rule that life can be produced
from unintelligent causes.
Conversely, (regardless of their relative success) all of
the previous experiments that Atheists and Agnostics previously
pointed to as empirical evidence that life can originate from
unintelligent causes now must be viewed as instances of life
originating through intelligent agency (of the scientists.)
Thus, the empirical instances we do have lead us to induce
a general rule that life originates from intelligent agency.
Atheism and Agnosticism, by definition, necessitate that all
aspects of the universe are caused by unintelligent causes.
However, since we have demonstrated that the empirical evidence
necessitates the conclusion that some aspect of the universe
(the origin of life) could not have come about through unintelligent
causes, we have disproved Atheism and Agnosticism.
In conclusion we have demonstrated the following eight points:
1) Atheistic/Agnostic Charge No. 1 is not a legitimate
reason to reject Theism since all origins theories (including
atheistic origins theories) inherently rely upon induction.
2) Atheistic/Agnostic Charge No. 2 is also false since
Theism does not require or rely upon circular reasoning whereby
Theists start by assuming the existence of God. Instead we
have shown that Theism is based upon 3 atheistic logical assumptions
and the available empirical, scientific evidence.
3) Atheistic/Agnostic Charge No. 3 is false because
all the available empirical evidence necessitates the conclusion
that as a general rule, life must result from intelligent
4) Atheistic/Agnostic Charge No. 4 is false. Occam's
Razor cannot be used to disqualify the theistic claim that
the First Cause is intelligent since the empirical evidence
NECESSITATES the conclusion that life results from an intelligent
5) Atheism and Agnosticism must be rejected as unscientific
and invalid for three reasons. First, neither can be supported
by any scientific, empirical evidence (because no such evidence
exists). And second, because all of the available scientific,
empirical evidence contradicts their claims that unintelligent
causes can produce life, by demonstrating that intelligent
agents are necessary to produce life. Third, since the empirical
evidence necessitates the conclusion that the origin of life
is the result of an intelligent agent, we must conclude that
the First Cause is intelligent. Thus, since the First Cause
must be intelligent, Atheism and Agnosticism are false.
6) Since Theism has been shown to be scientifically acceptable,
while Atheism and Agnosticism must be rejected as unscientific,
Theism is the only empirically supportable, scientifically
acceptable theory for the origin of life.
7) The empirical evidence offered by science demands the acceptance
of God's existence. Or put simply, with no other available
acceptable theory to consider based upon the empirical evidence
science tells us that God must exist.
8) (Based on Conclusions 1-7.) For Atheists and Agnostics
to continue to assert that life can be produced by unintelligent
causes would therefore not constitute science, but unsubstantiated,
unempirical, "religious" faith.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated the empirical evidence
necessitates the conclusion that our universe was caused by
an eternal, uncaused, intelligent agent exists outside our
universe. The term that Theists use for the eternal, uncaused,
intelligent First Cause that exists outside of our universe