The Core Problem: Belief Over Logic in METAPHYSICAL Discussions re. God vs no God
The Evidence Question: No Empirical Evidence for God or No God
This statement cannot be dismissed —there is no empirical evidence for or against the existence of God.
The nature of the question itself often transcends empirical verification, as it deals with metaphysical realities that are not subject to scientific observation. God, if He exists as the UCC, would not be a material entity bound by time and space, but the very foundation of existence itself.
However, the lack of empirical evidence for God does not equate to evidence against God. The absence of proof for atheism—despite its implicit or explicit denial of God—leaves it on equal or weaker footing. Without logical, philosophical, or evidential support for the assertion of "no God," atheism becomes an argument from silence or, worse, an evasion.
The PSR and the UCC
The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) demands that everything must have an explanation, either in itself or in something else. This principle is foundational to metaphysics and logic and poses a critical challenge to atheism:
1. If the universe is a brute fact, it lacks an explanation, violating the PSR.
2. If the universe has an explanation, it must either be another contingent cause (requiring its own explanation) or a necessary being—an Uncaused Cause (UCC)—that exists by necessity and explains all else. That is that
The only viable response to the PSR that avoids infinite regress is an eternal, self-existent UCC.
The God hypothesis satisfies this requirement logically, while atheism struggles to provide an alternative that meets the same standard. When atheists invoke "post-Big Bang phenomena" or quantum mechanics to address pre-Big Bang origins, they fail to address the ultimate source of existence. These explanations remain contingent, leaving the question of a UCC unanswered.
The most intellectually honest response is indeed, "We don't know." From this point, meaningful dialogue can proceed. However, as you pointed out, confirmation bias often overrides logic. Atheists dismiss the fine-tuning of the universe or the philosophical necessity of a UCC not because the arguments lack merit, but because they conflict with their presuppositions.
The Core Problem: Belief Over Logic
Ultimately, the issue is not evidence but will. Humans are deeply influenced by what they want to believe. For the atheist who desires autonomy and freedom from moral accountability, belief in God can feel restrictive and unwelcome, regardless of its logical support. This is not new, as you noted. The struggle to prioritize truth over preference has been a defining characteristic of humanity’s intellectual history.
The Atheist’s Presence in Theological Discussions
This observation is sharp:
Wy do atheists, who claim to reject belief in God, so often engage in discussions about God? If atheism is a settled belief, why not simply move on?
The answer reveals a paradox. Many atheists are not as satisfied with their position as they claim. If they were truly at peace, they would not feel compelled to counter theism with such vigor. Their participation often stems from an underlying discomfort or a subconscious recognition of the questions they cannot fully answer: Why does the universe exist? Why does it have order? Why do we have consciousness, morality, and purpose?
In contrast, the theist—particularly the Christian—has a clear motivation for these discussions: the Great Commission. Christians are called to share their faith and reason for belief with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). For them, these dialogues are not just intellectual exercises but acts of obedience and love.
The Underlying Truth: Seeking or Resisting
Ultimately, the presence of atheists in these discussions is telling. It reflects a deeper search, whether acknowledged or not. The tension arises not from the evidence itself but from the implications of accepting it. Like it or not. Admission aside. To acknowledge God is to accept accountability, morality, and purpose outside oneself—a reality that challenges the autonomy many atheists hold dear.
As Blaise Pascal wrote in his Pensées:
“Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true.”
For those who are genuinely seeking, discussions about God can plant seeds of truth, as you noted. Whether they grow depends on the soil of the heart. But the act of seeking itself is significant and often the first step toward discovery.
Faith, Logic, and Seeking
The interplay of belief, logic, and evidence is as much about the will as the intellect. The God hypothesis stands as a robust and logically coherent explanation for existence, while atheism often falters under scrutiny. Yet the heart of the matter lies in what individuals choose to believe—and why.
For the theist, these discussions are a fulfillment of their calling to share the truth with others. For the atheist, participation reveals a deeper restlessness, a recognition of unanswered questions that compel further exploration.
In the end, what may be stated:
“What we place faith in is one’s own silent decision.”
Let us continue these discussions with clarity and grace, knowing that every question asked and every seed planted has the potential to guide someone toward truth.
Veritas. Strength and Honor.
William W Collins
cr January, 2025
Comments
Post a Comment