How To Argue With Atheists

The Goal

To show the objective truth of Christian faith as a whole.

Three Apologetic Principles

1. Defend the Christian conception of God. 2. Defend the objective truth of Christian truth. (not just subjectively satisfying) 3. Christianity is a system of thought.

Defend the Christian conception of God?

Only the Trinitarian God of Christianity provides the conditions of intelligibility

Defend the objective truth of Christian truth?

Satisfaction does not play into truth. People can be satisfied with a false hypothesis. For example: A person has cancer. The doctor comes in and states they are in good health. The satisfaction of the patient does not change the facts.

Van Til on compelling truth

Van Til addressing the skeptic who says “While the Christian can prove his position is reasonable, there is not way to provide compelling truth that God exists or the Bible is the Word of God”

Objectively Valid vs Subjectivity Acceptable

There is a confusion on what is objectively valid and what is subjectively acceptable to the natural man. It is true that no method of Christian argument will be acceptable to the natural man. The more consistently the Christian of our argumentation, the less acceptable it will be to the natural man. A patient may like a doctor who tells him that his condition can be cured external applications and dislike the doctor who says that he need major internal operation. Yet, the latter doctor may be right in his diagnosis. The argument of Christianity must be presented as objective truth.

Christianity is a system of thought?

We are not defending Christians but a system of thought. When Christians do bad things, it is not because it is true, but that they are acting outside of Christian truth.

The Argument The atheist is going to demand evidence and that is good.

1. Determine the nature of the evidence. 2. See that the Theistic question is a special question 3. You must offer a transcendental argument for God.

Determine the nature of the evidence?

The evidence for an existence/truth claim must be determined by the nature of the nature/truth that you are trying to prove. You cannot prove the existence of God by natural means because He is a supernatural Being. You do not prove His existence the same way that you would prove the existenc of Crater Lake.

What are meta-physics?

The raw reality Nature, structure and origin of what is real. Asks Are there angels? Is causality true? Is there a soul? Is there life after death? Is there a God? What one thinks about reality will affect what type of evidence that he will accept.

What are two atheist schools of thought?

1. Rationalism…People can know things apart from their senses by reason alone. 2. Experientialism…People know things by their senses.

Rationalism

Plato stated that one can know something without the benefit of experiencing it. Plato held to the idea of universal forms: cowness. You can milk Beulah but not cowness

Experientialism

David Hume (Scottish) held that you cannot know things apart from your senses. If we are going to know anything we must have some kind of sensation. For Hume, sensation is the direct experience of the world through our senses, forming the most basic building blocks of human thought and knowledge. There are no universals. The only things that exist are particular in nature. There may be cows but there is not idea or form of cowness.

One’s metaphysical views will determine one’s epistemological views. Explain

What you will accept for evidence will be determined by what you believe exists. These are mutually dependent. Thus, there is no neutrality.

To the atheist, we can sa,y “God has provided evidence everywhere.”

-creation heavens/land stars, raging seas, forests. -intricacy of the human body -history in the life of his Son -Christ's life/death/resurrection -way He judges nations -Scripture: history, prophecy, harmony, transforming power - the church

The natural man is assuming the autonomy of his own existence. They are unwilling to accept any fact that would challenge your self-sufficiency.

The atheist will object, saying, "I have a natural explanation for all those things". If he is a materialist, all these things must be re-interpreted to hold to his naturalism. The naturalist will not accept evidence of the supernatural. These are personal prejudices. This person is insulting and stealing from God. We must not offend God in fear of offending the man.

The Challenge For the Atheist

Christians must not simply argue over isolated facts, but must challenge the underlying worldview that the atheist brings to the table. He argues that atheism cannot provide a rational basis for logic, science, or morality. To take a look at his own personal prejudice against God. We want him to be critical of his most basic assumption of autonomy.

Worldview

The lens by which you view reality What you believe to be true and real. A basic outlook on life. We are really arguing about worldview.

What is the challenge with different worldviews?

The conflict between worldviews will be resolved differently than factual conflicts within worldviews. Is there such thing as a baseball? Can be proved within a common worldview. The argument between a Buddhist and Christian will be different than between two Christians. We will be arguing between two worldviews. How do you resolve? You cannot appeal to neither laws nor facts.

TAG

Trancedental Argument For God Without God, universal laws and standards would have no basis and could not consistently apply. 1. Only God provided the preconditions necessary for intelligibility. 2. Argues for the impossibility of the contrary. God is necessary for proving everything.

Direct Argumentation

Arguing in a straight line from evidence to a conclusion. Assumes neutral ground

Indirect Argumentation

Presuppositionalists heavily favor indirect Indirect argumentation—often called a transcendental argument—does not start by presenting new evidence. Instead, it examines the unbeliever’s own worldview and shows that it destroys its own foundation. It argues from the impossibility of the contrary.How it works: You step into the opponent’s worldview for a moment to show that if their assumptions were true, they couldn’t even trust their own brain, logic, or science You claim the universe is just a random accident with no God. If that is true, your brain is just a byproduct of random chemical reactions. Why should we trust the logic of a random brain accident? Therefore, you must assume a rational Creator just to using e logic to argue against Him.” argumentation because they believe human reason is not neutral.

The basic question

"What makes things intelligible?" Bahnsen's point is that intelligibility cannot stand on its own or be assumed arbitrarily; rather, it must be grounded in something absolute.

Basic strategy

We must place ourselves in his worldview to show the failure of it and invite him into the Christian worldview.

CASE: Laws of Logic

The Metaphysics: You look at the universe and conclude that only physical atoms, energy, and chemical reactions are real. There is no spiritual realm, no soul, and no God. The Worldview: Because you believe only matter exists, you now have to live your life. You conclude that human beings have no ultimate cosmic purpose, right and wrong are just social constructs, and when you die, you simply cease to exist. Ask "Given the randomness and chance of the materialistic worldview, can you account for rationality and logic?" Are the laws of logic just electro-chemical reactions in the brain? If so that does not make it uniform or universal in everyone else. The laws of logic are not physical things but are always true and unchanging, which points to a transcendent, immaterial source—God. Without God, objective morality, and the ability to know anything would be impossible or self-contradictory. Thus, the very act of reasoning presupposes a transcendent God who grounds logic and moral order. ​It is distinctive because it challenges non-theistic worldviews to account for the preconditions of rationality and knowledge, not just empirical evidence. The argument often takes the form of showing that disbelief in God leads to a contradiction when trying to justify reasoning itself, making belief in God necessary for coherent thought.

Case: Natural Science

Ask "Given the randomness and chance of the materialistic worldview, can you account for uniformity in nature" Natural science assumes the uniformity of nature and repeatability. You expect nature to be uniform. Similar factors bring similar effects. Astronaut in the a rocket. Chance and randomness are all the atheist has to offer. God offers a regularity. All know that order, uniformity and causality is controlled by God.

CASE: Absolutes and "Oughtness"

Ask "Given the randomness and chance of the materialistic worldview, can you account for ethics "right and wrong". If history and everyday life is just randon atoms doing what atoms do, then there is no moral absolute that can be employed universally. The atheist cannot explain ethics…the application of moral absolutes.

Key Principles In Arguing With An Atheist

1. Challenge the Atheist’s Foundations 2. Arbitrariness and Inconsistency 3. The Impossibility of the Contrary 4. Transcendental Argument: 5. Demonstrate the Consequences: 6. All People Know God

1. Challenge the Atheist's Foundations

When engaging with atheists, Christians must not simply argue over isolated facts, but must challenge the underlying worldview that the atheist brings to the table.

2. Arbitrariness and Inconsistency

Any worldview must be free from arbitrariness (unsupported assumptions) and internal inconsistency (contradictory beliefs).

3. The Impossibility of the Contrary

“the proof of God’s existence is that without Him you can’t prove anything at all.”

4. Transcendental Argument

Rather than trying to build up to God from neutral ground, use the transcendental argument. Ask the atheist to explain how logic, science, and morality are possible in a godless universe, and shows that these things only make sense if the Christian God exists.

5. Demonstrate the Consequences

Use practical and ethical dilemmas to show that atheists cannot consistently live out their worldview. “Let’s see what your worldview really gives you if you live it out consistently,” and then press where it breaks. there’s no basis for universal, invariant logical laws yet atheists use them in debates, assuming their reliability. In his debate with Gordon Stein, he asked why anyone should expect experimental repeatability in a godless cosmos driven by chaos; atheists appeal to probability, which begs the question since probability itself requires uniformity. Practically, this means atheists cannot consistently trust bridges or medicines without “borrowing” theistic capital. Atheists live as if moral absolutes exist (e.g., opposing child abuse universally), but their worldview offers no basis, revealing ethical schizophrenia. .

Example of Inability to live out World view

“Morality is just a product of evolution and personal or social preference. There is no objective right or wrong ‘out there’; it’s all human construction.” Pose a concrete ethical case:Ask: “Was the Holocaust objectively wrong, or only wrong according to some people’s preferences and cultural norms at that time?” If they say, “Objectively wrong,” you then ask, “On your view, where does that objective ‘wrongness’ come from, if there is no God, no objective moral law, and only evolved preferences?” If they say, “It was just against our preferences or current social norms,” you can press: “So if a future society prefers genocide, is it then not really wrong, just different? Draw out the tension: In practice, most atheists do want to say genocide is truly, universally wrong, not just “I don’t like it.” But on their own stated foundations (no God, no objective moral law, only natural processes and preferences), they have no stable basis for calling anything objectively evil. So they live as if there are real, binding moral duties (condemning cruelty, demanding justice), but their worldview reduces those duties to subjective feelings or societal habits. Show the conclusion “Your life (treating some actions as truly evil and justice as truly obligatory) does not fit your professed worldview (no transcendent moral law, only matter in motion). That inconsistency shows your worldview cannot account for the very moral judgments you actually make. The Christian worldview, with a personal, righteous God and His law, can.

6. All People Know God

All people already know God exists but suppress this truth.

CASE: Skepticism

Skepticism Undermines Knowledge If skepticism is true—if we cannot know anything for certain—then the skeptic cannot even know that skepticism itself is true. This self-defeating nature leaves the skeptic unable to justify any claim, including their own skeptical position.

Neutral Ground

An illusion. Neutral ground is the idea that a Christian and a non-Christian can step completely outside of their worldviews and meet on a piece of intellectual territory that favors neither side. It assumes both people can judge facts with a completely unbiased, uncommitted mind

Common ground

A reality that belongs to God Common ground consists of the things that both the Christian and the non-Christian actually share, experience, and agree upon in the real world—such as the laws of logic, the existence of objective morality, and the reliability of the physical universe.