Ten Facts Which Challenge the Rationality of the Atheistic Claim Part II

Both the complexity and the inter-relational workings of the host of machinery found within every single cell on earth repudiate the notion that mindless evolution could have assemble these “factories” and gotten them into operation in the first place.  The logically deductive process that called “inference to the best explanation” points inescapably to God as their sole designer and maker.

The complete absence of transitional fossils on the biological trail of the history of life on Earth is ample proof that Darwinian evolution has not happened.

Our very capacity as human beings to freely think, plan, create, carry out projects, and to persuade others to our point of view, assumes a paradigm about personal reality that materialism (atheism) cannot address.  The Biblical doctrine of creation affirms God’s intention that humans have a material (bodily) aspect while it also assumes that at the same time humans have an immaterial soul.  It is the materialist’ denial of the latter which leaves unexplained the range of common human experiences listed just above.  The insistence of atheists that we are simply and solely material machines involves them in a profound self-contradiction.  In their denial of the reality of free will, which they ground specifically on their mechanistic view of reality, they logically undermine the validity of their every assertion.  J.B.S. Haldane put it this way, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms” Possible Worlds. (Chatto and Windus, 1927), p.209).

The materialistic rejection of revelation (inspiration by God) on the allegation that truth is attained by “reason” alone is not rational.  It is of course reasonable to investigate the claim about a specific text (e.g. the Bible) in order to determine whether or not it actually is revelation.  Obviously the array of “holy” books claiming to be revelation cannot all be true since they contradict each other.  Actual examination of the text in question is required in order to address that question.  On the other hand, the out-of-hand dismissal of revelation is logically fallacious even in principle.  The suggestion that knowledge is attained only by empirical analysis is the illogical equivalent of claiming to exhaustively know our spouse when we habitually refuse to listen to a word she says.  Being in actual conversation (dominated by hearing) with another human being is the only reliable way to know another person meaningfully.