Posted on 10/16/2025 10:05:39 AM PDT by Heartlander
Rational discourse, argumentation, and even the act of debating the existence of God rely on certain foundational assumptions that atheism (particularly in its naturalistic or materialistic forms) cannot consistently justify or ground. These assumptions only make sense within a theistic worldview, where God provides the ultimate basis for logic, reason, morality, free will, and consciousness.
Moreover, foundational assumptions—law of non-contradiction, sound reason, free will, objective morality, and the primacy of mind—are necessary for any meaningful argument to exist (transcendental conditions, like how geometry presupposes axioms).
For example:
The law of non-contradiction (LNC)—that a statement cannot be both true and false in the same sense at the same time—is the bedrock of all logical discourse. Without it, propositions lose meaning: an atheist couldn’t coherently claim “God does not exist” without implying it’s not simultaneously true that “God does exist.”
In a purely naturalistic universe (e.g., one governed by physical laws without a transcendent mind), why should LNC hold universally? Atheistic materialism might reduce logic to evolved brain patterns or descriptive conventions, but these are contingent on biology or culture—potentially variable or illusory. If LNC is just a human construct or emergent from chaotic matter, it lacks absolute authority, making arguments relativistic or unreliable.
God, as an eternal, rational being (e.g., the Logos in Christian theology), grounds LNC in His unchanging nature. Logic isn’t arbitrary but reflects divine order, ensuring it’s invariant and applicable universally. This makes argumentation possible because the universe is rationally structured by a rational Creator.
Sound reason includes deductive/inductive inference, evidence evaluation, and fallacy avoidance—the “tools” of debate. Without them, one can’t construct premises, draw conclusions, or refute opponents; argumentation becomes mere assertion or noise.
Naturalistic atheism often views reason as an evolutionary adaptation for survival, not truth-seeking. If brains evolved to prioritize reproduction over accuracy (e.g., via cognitive biases), reason could be unreliable or illusory. Why trust inductive reasoning (e.g., “past patterns predict future”) in a godless, purposeless cosmos? Materialism might reduce thought to physical processes, but physics doesn’t inherently produce reliable cognition.
“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
- Charles Darwin
“Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.”God, as the source of rationality, designed human minds in His image (imago Dei), equipping them with reliable reason to comprehend His creation. This teleological purpose ensures reason aligns with truth, making it a trustworthy tool.
- Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
Materialistic atheism typically embraces determinism (e.g., via physics or neuroscience), where choices are caused by prior states. Compatibilism (soft determinism) redefines “free” as acting per desires, but free will requires genuine alternatives. If minds are brain chemistry, free will is an illusion (as per thinkers like Sam Harris), making argumentation performative rather than rational persuasion—undermining the “who” in debate.
“Am I free to change my mind? Of course not. It can only change me.”God endows humans with souls or immaterial agency, enabling free will as part of moral accountability. This preserves the dignity of persons as choosers, making debate meaningful. We see how prayer (discussions with God) affects the choices of man.
“…You are no more responsible for the next thing you think (and therefore do) than you are for the fact that you were born into this world.”
- Sam Harris
Objective morality provides the “why” for debate: we argue because truth matters, deception is wrong, and intellectual honesty is a duty. Without it, arguments lack normative force—why ought one seek truth or avoid fallacies? Debate becomes optional preference.
Naturalism grounds morality in evolution (e.g., social instincts) or subjectivity (e.g., cultural relativism), making it non-objective. If “good” is just survival-promoting, why argue about metaphysics? Moral nihilism (common in atheism) dismisses oughts entirely, removing motivation for rational pursuit.
God’s nature defines objective good (divine command theory or natural law), imposing duties like truth-seeking. Argumentation fulfills a moral imperative to honor God’s rational order.
“Mind is primary” suggests idealism or dualism: consciousness isn’t reducible to matter but foundational. Without this, the self (“you”) dissolves—no conscious agent to argue, just physical processes mimicking thought.
Materialistic atheism reduces mind to brain (physicalism), facing the “hard problem” of consciousness (per David Chalmers): how do qualia arise from matter? If mind is illusory or epiphenomenal, there’s no real “arguer”—just atoms in motion, undermining subjectivity.
Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.God, as pure mind/spirit, creates conscious beings, grounding personhood. Mind’s primacy reflects divine priority over matter.
- David Bentley Hart
An atheist debating God’s non-existence must “borrow” these from theism, leading to performative contradiction—they affirm in practice what they deny in theory. This isn’t ad hominem but highlights worldview inconsistency: atheism reduces to absurdity, while theism coheres holistically. If atheism were true, the very tools and context for argumentation would collapse into incoherence, rendering the atheist’s position untenable.
In other words, the First Principles of Logic presuppose a creator God
freaking interesting.
Without Christianity, this world would be unlivable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.