Challenge for an Atheist

Are you afraid of a challenge?

If not, read until the end…

Why have people converted from atheism to theism? (example)

Is it because they are afraid of death? Of truth? Or maybe it’s because they truly want to talk to a bearded man in the sky, and they’ve totally lost their minds…

Or maybe, just maybe, its something else.

What if the existence of God was the Truth? How would anyone come to that conclusion?

Is it possible to come to that conclusion? You say no, probably, but how do we come to any conclusion? The scientific method, perhaps?

Can the scientific method prove things like the value of a human person, morality, compassion, forgiveness, or any other abstract concept? But are those things, such as the value of a person, inherently true? And why is it true? Why would science say it is true?

The first science was logic. And logic developed the scientific method. Thus, is it not fair to try and use logic to prove these things? And how would you do that? Is it not by a series of steps, two premises and a conclusion?

Thus, if I were to prove to you the existence of God via logic, would you accept it? Or would you run? Would you be afraid of the challenge? Would you be afraid of the possibility that God exists? And why? Why would you run from that Truth if it were True?

Both theists and atheists should not run from the Truth. For if truth said that God did not exists, theists should accept that. And vis versa.

The argument we must refute is a simple one. Change. You’ve probably already done this by now, but if not, let’s walk through it together.

Step 1 –

Premise A: Without a changer, change cannot begin.

Premise B: If a change never began, it never existed.

Conclusion A: All changes must have been begun by another (a changer)

Step 2 –

Premise A: If there were an infinite series of changes, then the only thing that would not change is change itself

Premise B: But if change did not change, then there would be no order because everything in the universe would constantly be changing

Conclusion: There must have been a first change in the universe

Step 3 –

Premise A: All changes must have been begun by another (see Conclusion A)

Premise B: There must have been a first change in the universe (see Conclusion B)

Conclusion C: That which caused the first change in the universe must not be capable of change.

We theists call this “Unchanging Changer” God…

Please, challenge the premises (and I guess you’d challenge step 2, premise B, to which I say, how wouldn’t everything be changing? And why not the forms of things? Or the laws of nature? What makes them constant?)

Note: The above argument does not necessarily have to apply to changes in the past, but also applies to changes in the present, as well as hierarchical changes – for example, if I decide to move a rock with a stick, my arm is moving the stick, and the stick then moves the rock, then what is moving my arm? Anyhow, the point is that these are changes in the present.

But before you object! I want to ask a more important question . . .  

Why did we atheists not believe in the first place? Perhaps the existence of evil or suffering within our own lives or that of the world. I think sometimes we forget to be skeptical about our own skepticism. For would not the existence of an all-good God merit a meaning to all this evil and suffering, a meaning greater than what was lost in the evil? That without evil, true good cannot be known, appreciated, understood, tried, or tested? Is not good truly good in the presence of evil, just as bravery is truly brave in the presence of fear? And maybe, the greatest gift of all is this freedom to know True Good, as I would say – God.

But why on Earth would a God remain hidden from us? Again, maybe we should be skeptical of our own skepticism. Maybe God is hidden not because He desires to remain hidden from us, but because we desire to remain hidden from Him, and because He is humble. And to be humble is to be unassuming.

Speaking of which, whose to say God is a He? A topic for another day, I’d say. Let’s just keep it a He for brevity’s sake.

Okay, so, who’s to say that this Unchanging Changer is God?

An excellent question. But before I become Socrates himself in an attempt to address all these things, maybe you would want to tackle some of the premises above (if so, please send me an email – I would love to add to this article) – so, what are your counter points?

Email: michaeljamesplock@gmail.com