Atheism and the plea of Ignorance

The Psychology of Atheism

-Whether anyone at all will be able to argue convincingly before God that the knowledge of His existence was not sufficient.


It seems that God does not exist, for if He did, He would make His existence more evident and He would not need man to argue for His existence. Further, there would have been no room for doubt in the mind of any man, for such knowledge would be demonstrable, knowable and easy to access. And therefore the fact that human beings argue about His existence means He does not exist.

Bertrand Russell was once asked, if he were to come before God, what he would say to God. Russell replied, “Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence.”

On the contrary, it is very ironical that a man believes that if he shall stand before God, he shall manage to convince an all knowing, perfectly wise being who knows the end from the beginning that He somehow forgot to include sufficient evidence for the knowledge of His existence. Omniscience and forgetfulness in one being at the same time. That even though God knew from all eternity past in His foreknowledge and omniscience that there shall be such men, who deny His existence, on the grounds of insufficient evidence for His existence, He still coincidentally forgot after all to include this sufficient evidence upon creation of the world.

But It is written 

''For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse''

Romans 1:19-20

I argue that, it would be ironical that God could place the demand for the knowledge of His existence and either forget or fail deliberately to leave enough evidence  for such knowledge to be acquired and after all still hold every human being accountable for their choices especially on a matter with eternal consequences. On the contrary i submit to my reader that the evidence of Gods existence is not only beyond reasonable doubt, which denotes a high degree of probability, it is beyond a shadow of doubt which denotes full philosophical certainty thereby leaving every man without excuse. 

Self Evident Truths

I answer that, the impression of deity is as common as reason, of the same age with reason, and it proceeds from reason, S. Charnock, 1628. In the order of being, God is first; but in the order of knowing, logic leads us to all knowledge of God. For God is the basis of all logic (in the order of being), but logic is the basis of all knowledge of God (in the order of knowing). Norman Geisler, 1990

The knowledge of Gods existence is first a question of reasoning before it ever became a question of religion or science. Because God cares enough to have made the knowledge of His existence as easy and accessible to all in the form of self evident truths. Because to argue that we need science to know such truths is to say that all men who lived before the development of modern science would never have known whether God exists or not. Or to say that the bible or religion is required is to say that all men living away from the rest of civilization with no access to the bible would never know if God exists or not. It follows therefore that there has to be a knowledge which needs no further validation of itself, whether through religion or science. Knowledge which is common to all. Knowledge otherwise known as self evident truths. A knowledge which is true or false by definition, where to ask it is to answer it.

It is self evident that as whatever lacks intelligence (a something) cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence (a someone), as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer, emphasis added (Aquinas, 1485) is the same way a physical and material substance such as the universe cannot move on its own towards a process of existence and self organization into galaxies and planets and moons, unless such a one is directed towards its end by a being possessing knowledge and intelligence.

It therefore follows as a matter of self evident truth that a someone must have directed the origin of this universe to its predetermined end, a someone or a being otherwise known as God. Such knowledge requires no empirical (sense perceptions) demonstration, for it is true by virtue of its own self evident nature. Would a man claim not to know the creative capabilities of intelligence and the creative capabilities of a mindless cause and still sound rational in the process. Does a man need science or religion to see the extent of the order in nature, how each of the elements in mature move towards a higher purpose other than themselves, when they serve as a means to an end. Does the sun shine for itself or the rain wet the ground for its own benefit. Does the plant produce fruits out of its own curiosity or does it serve a purpose other than what it can determine on its own.

Does the air that we breathe not exist to serve as a means to an end. For which mindless cause is this that could order creation of such magnitude towards a purpose and an end or to which of the forces in nature could we attribute such interdependencies between natural bodies. Through which understanding did the clouds form for the rain and the rain for the clouds, the seasons for the plants, the plants for food and the food for the creatures. Through which power and understanding did the galaxies create and suspend themselves in their respective orbits if no mind was involved. Does not the clock of the sun and moon tell the time and seasons just like the clock on a mans wrist tell the time. Does this not indicate the handiwork of a superior mind to which everything in creation owes its explanation of origin. Who is this who does not know whose mind this mind belongs to.

If nature hath not an understanding, it cannot work such effects. If nature therefore uses counsel to begin a thing, reason to dispose it, art to effect it, virtue to complete it, and power to govern it, why should it be called nature rather than God?”

S. Charnock

Has any man ever observed in nature anything coming into existence, or to which man would we say they possess the power of bringing things into existence. Did the maker of the chair the reader is seated on bring it into existence or did they not change its form from its initial state to its current one. Is not the possession of the power of existence a clear indication of the self existing nature of the creator. Could the universe be this self existing agent. For to which of the elements in the universe could we attribute the power of self existence. Anything that is self existing must be self existing not in part but in whole.

Shall any man say that they are not aware that life is only the product of a life bearing agent, and defend that argument to its logical end? If life is from non life, at what point did this arrangement change to be life from life as we see today. If life is from non life, is that not an effect without a cause, for how would an effect have more than what is inherent in the cause. Since life is not a sum total of parts, where did this life come from if the cause does not have life, is the atheist here not appealing to self creation, a clear logical violation. 

The writer submits that that which is beyond human understanding as the universe and life is cannot be a result of random chance, for the same way the human mind struggles to comprehend and replicate it is the same way a mindless cause would not only struggle but be utterly unable to produce it.

No excuse

The ancient men would from time to time erroneously attribute deity to the elements in nature, some worshiped the sun, others the moon, while others the stars, but simply because the glory of the creator was so manifest in created things that even in their primitiveness, they could still see this glory radiating through the created order. Is not then the atheists arguments counter intuitive?  The writer proposes that the divine qualities of God are clearly manifested through creation and through self evident knowledge. That the plea of ignorance is the atheists last resort,  a get out of jail free card, whereby he hopes against all hope that if he shall stand before God, he shall argue satisfactorily that the knowledge of God's existence could not be known.

No need to wait for science, no need to wait for your bishop, no need to wait for a philosopher to avail such knowledge to you, no religion needed, or a bible to open, for everything that a man needs to know God exists is at his disposal. The mind is all that is needed, a tool that every man has.

But every attempt to deny the self evident nature of the knowledge of Gods existence is what is described in God's word ''Romans 1:18'' as suppressing the knowledge of God's truth in deceit. And since every man has access to this knowledge in his mind and all around him, free as air, it is for that reason why no man will have any viable justification or excuse before God as to why they could not attain to the knowledge of His existence. Therefore shall we say with the psalmist;

''The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.''

Psalms 19:1

Where did God come from?
Self existence and the power of being.