Atheism is irrational.
The Catholic Church has taught from the get-go (consider St. Paul’s statement in Romans 1:18-24) that reason is sufficient to hold for the existence of God. Faith is what we believe about the God whose existence reason demonstrates. As such, atheism is irrational, because it holds on faith, and contrary to reason, that God does not exist.
Romans 1:18-24
“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.”
Atheism demands that we hold at least one of three irrational claims:
- Something can spontaneously emerge from nothing.
- Order can spontaneously emerge from chaos, given enough time.
- Something can be the cause of its own existence.
A Universe from Nothing?
Nothing comes from nothing. There is no experience ever that something can spontaneously emerge from nothing. Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist, wrote a book entitled A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing (2012). In his lecture of the same title, he explains that the ancient Christian philosophers who concluded that God created the universe from nothing looked to the deep, dark expanse of the universe and saw that there were great gaps of empty space in between the stars and the galaxies. They concluded that this represented the nothing from which God created the universe. But now we know better. We know that all that empty space isn’t empty at all. It’s filled with planets, stars, and the stuff of the universe. Krauss concludes, basically that the universe emerged spontaneously from this stuff because of the laws of physics. As such, Krauss simply changes the definition of “nothing” from “nothing” to “something.” As he says in his lecture, “Nothing isn’t nothing anymore!” Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking and theoretical physicist Leonard Mlodinow claim in their book, The Grand Design, that the laws of physics allow a universe to emerge from nothing. But this is absurd. The laws of physics are descriptive, not causative, meaning they describe how the physical universe acts. If there is no physical universe, there are no laws of physics.
And, by the way, Krauss’ understanding of ancient Christian philosophy’s understanding of nothing as representing the “empty” space between the galaxies, stars, etc. is simply wrong. The ancient Christian philosophers taught that God created the universe ex nihilo, that is, from nothing. Nothing at all. Nada. Zip. Zilch. It’s difficult to grasp an understanding of nothing because we’ve never experienced it. But it is from nothing that God created everything.
Order Spontaneously Emerging from Chaos?
Order cannot emerge spontaneously from chaos. For order to emerge from chaos, a catalyst is required. Scientists define “spontaneous” as the absence of external energy impacting the system. If the system has nothing external to it that impacts its activity or behavior to change, then any change in the system is considered spontaneous.
Numerous examples are offered of order spontaneously emerging from chaos in the natural world. Let’s consider:
Solar systems form spontaneoulsy from diffuse gas and dust clouds. But wait, gravity is a necessary catalyst acting on these clouds. And these gas and dust clouds don’t come from nowhere. They’re the remnant of older stars and the Big Bang. That hardly sounds like order spontaneously emerging from chaos.
Atoms found in a solution can spontaneously form into crystals. But wait a minute. Atoms themselves are ordered, and if you ask “what sort of catalysts are required for atoms to form into crystals?’ you get all kinds of examples, including the following: “Crystals are often formed using catalysts that act as sites for atoms to attach to and build structures.” Again, this is order spontaneously emerging from chaos?
The claim is made that branching patterns in trees are an example of order emerging from chaos. But this is ridiculous. The patterns of tree branches are determined by genetic programming and forces like gravity, light, and wind impacting the direction the branches take.
The bottom line is, nature itself is an ordered system. It possesses order and intelligibility, which is why we can study it, which makes science possible. All of the examples above, and every other one that I’ve found proposed as an example of order spontaneously emerging from chaos, in fact require a catalyst impacting their direction or activity to eventually arrive at order.
High school or college students are fond of repeating the popular claim, or a variation thereof, that if you have a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters over a million years, eventually you get Shakespeare. But this is spurious. In fact, what you get is a million years’ worth of gibberish. Mathematician Stephen Woodcock, associate professor at the University of Technology Syndney, undertook a study with his colleague on this question. The published study claimed that, with 200,000 chimpanzees (the current world population) typing continuously over 30 years (the lifespan of a chimp), there is only a 5% chance of one monkey typing out the word “banana”.
Without a catalyst imposing order on random chaos, there is no reason to imagine that the chaos will somehow spontaneously transform into an orderly system, one in which we may have any confidence of predictable, ordered behavior.
Can something be the cause of its own existence?
It ought to be obvious that nothing can be the cause of its own existence, because something would have to exist before it existed to bring about its own existence. A popular answer among some atheists for the question of why there’s something rather than nothing is the multi-verse. Those who hypothesize a multi-verse claim an infinite number of universes have existed for an infinite number of eons. Therefore, no God is needed to explain why something exists rather than nothing because something has always existed. Our universe is simply one of billions that have come and gone out of existence over the course of the infinite existence of the multi-verse.
Well, first, there is no scientific evidence of a multi-verse. It’s simply a hypothesis. As well, since the existence of a multi-verse cannot be tested and is not falsifiable, two key principles of the scientific method, it doesn’t even count as real science. It may be an attractive hypothesis to some, but those who hold to the existence of a multi-verse do so without any evidence. It’s simply taken on faith.
Second, we know that the universe exists within time and changes and, therefore, the multi-verse exists within time and changes. For all things that exist within time and are subject to change, one of the changes it is subject to is the change from existence to non-existence. Given this, it’s counter-intuitive to assume that the multi-verse has always existed. So, where did the multi-verse come from? If atheists insist that the multi-verse has always existed, then they are essentially claiming that the multi-verse is responsible for its own existence, which is saying the same thing as the multi-verse is its own cause. This is absurd.
Atheists like to claim that they are led by reason and science, that they simply go where the evidence leads them. But, from a Catholic perspective, this isn’t true at all. Reason demonstrates the existence of God. To hold that God does not exist, atheists must rely on irrational claims. This is why atheism is a position of faith and not rational thought. To hold that God does not exist, atheists must make their claim against the rational evidence for God’s existence, demanding that we hold at least one of the above three irrational claims.
Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.
Thoughts and Prayers for the Faithful 
every cult has much the same as Romans 1, and not a single theist can show tthat their god/gods exist. Alas, for theists, we do have evidence tha something can come into existence from nothing. You simply argue that your imaginary friend has “always” been around, which is another thing you can’t demonstrate.
Happily, reason doesn’t show that your imaginary friend exists at all. And that means your sadistic little fantasies will never come true.
LikeLike
Bueller? Bueller?
LikeLike
the lines from one of the more clueless people in the movie. How appropriate.
LikeLike
That’s it? You said “we do have evidence that something can come into existence from nothing.” So, what is this evidence? What is this something from nothing?
LikeLike
IT so sweet that you think saying nonsense from a movie is asking for evidence. Here’s a pretty good summary from google AI:
How “something” can come from “nothing”
The physics definition of “nothing”
Cosmic inflation: The idea that the universe could have come from a different “epoch” before the Big Bang is also a way to approach the question, with cosmic inflation providing a scientific explanation for the universe’s origin from a very different, but not absolutely empty, state.
now, do tell us where your god came from, and where it is, and how we can know its your god.
Not absolute nothingness: When physicists talk about “nothing,” they are typically referring to the vacuum of space in its lowest energy state, not a complete absence of everything.
The vacuum is not empty: This quantum vacuum still contains fields and the potential for fluctuations, and it is governed by the laws of physics.
LikeLike
Regarding your comment of Dec 1, 6:43pm:
As in your other most recent comments, my attempts to find a meaningful, rational, logical argument in this tirade fails. Your reasoning is irrational, incomprehensible. “You’re wrong!” “You’re ignorant!” “You fail!” With no sense of obligation to explain why. You seem convinced that all you have to do is say it and it’s so. Perhaps that works on your blog, but here rational argument is expected. I use a math analogy and you say atheism has nothing to do with math. What is that? Who’s mind works like that? I suspect your anger is making it difficult for you to think clearly. You should relax and collect your thoughts before putting them down. Your regular mis-spellings and transposed letters recommend that you are typing fast and furiously, angrily spewing forth what you’ve consumed from atheist books and friends. This shouldn’t be so important to you. It’s a conversation on a blog.
Anyway, your comment here is a roundabout way of saying you got nothing. Thank you.
Again, you’re boring me. I’m not going to respond to boring, anymore. Get back to me when you have something interesting to say.
LikeLike
Hmm, seems that you are willing to “waste” your time yet again.
Again, where is your evidence for your god, that isnt’ something that any theist can use?
Where is the evidence that there is a “standard” of morality?
Atheism has nothing to do with math, dear since atheism is about concluding if a god or gods exist. Math describes reality, which your god can’t be found in.
The only one here who is getting angry and frustrated is you. It’s always great fun to see someone whine about typos when they have nothing else to fuss about. Nice of you to try to claim victory since no one else would notice.
LikeLike
Well, to be precise, not a single theist can show that our God exists to your satisfaction. Though I suspect that’s more because of your refusal to consider the evidence for God seriously, or because, as with Newman’s argument, you fail to comprehend them. There is a great deal of evidence for the existence of God. Too many atheists today are intellectually lazy, though. Rather than take on the arguments for God, they simply declare per so notum that there is no evidence for God, hoping that, by repeating it enough, it will eventually stick. It isn’t sticking.
In fact, the tide seems to be turning, and old fashioned religion is making a bit of a comeback among the younger generation. The convert class at my parish is 29 strong, and there are many young men among them. The average age of our catechumens is 23. The average age of our candidates is 29. And we have four confirmandi, all of whom are under the age of thirty. I suppose many young people have realized the hollowness of secular society and the so very little it has to offer, especially in terms of meaning and meaningful relationships.
I’m curious, though, what is this evidence that something can come into existence from nothing? You understand by “nothing” we mean NOTHING. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nein. Nothing at all. Ex nihilo. No space. No time. No matter. No energy. It’s difficult to comprehend, of course, because we’ve never experienced nothing, nor could we. I’d be eager to learn of this “something from nothing” of which you speak.
LikeLike
So since no one can show their gods exist to “your satisfaction” why don’t you believe in those gods, dear? Is it that they have no evdience for them, just like you have no evidence for your god?
There is no evience for the existence of god. Waht christians claim as evidence all theists can use to support their god too. So do show how we are to know your particular version of the christian god exists. Surely you can, right?
Amusingly, no “old fashioned religion” is returning, and it’s hilarious how you seem to think that ignorant people joining cults makes the cult’s claims true. Your roman catholic cult is no more popular than every other version of christianity. Curious how christians still can’t agree on whose version is the “right’ one.
Do explain where your god came from, dear. I’m waiting.
LikeLike
Clubshad … I’m exhausted. Traveling to Nashville and back and meetings all day. BUT, I promised I would respond when I got home, so I’ll offer something here and get back to you on the rest tomorrow. Gotta get up early for yet another procedure.
First, again, you aren’t reading carefully. I didn’t think the movie line a request for evidence. I had asked for evidence in my Nov 19 post. Did you miss that? The movie line was my extraordinarily clever way of asking, “Where art thou?”
Since we’re using AI now, here’s its answer to the question, “What evidence is there of something coming from nothing?”:
“There is no definitive evidence that something came from “nothing,” as the concept is debated in both scientific and philosophical contexts. While science shows that matter and energy can be created from a quantum vacuum (e.g., virtual particles), this “vacuum” is not true nothingness because it still contains fields and energy. Scientific models of the universe’s origin, such as the Big Bang theory, describe the creation of the universe from an initial, extremely dense and hot state, but the origin of that state itself is unknown and cannot be tested.”
Recall that for Catholic philosophers over the centuries, the definition of “nothing” was NOTHING. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nein. Nothing at all. ex nihilo. No space, no time, no matter, no energy. This was the definition of “nothing” for centuries. The fact that some contemporary scientists have redefined “nothing” to mean “something that we’re gonna call nothing,” such as quantum fluctualting fields, does not discredit Catholic philosophy’s claim that God made everything out of nothing. Rather, it discredits those contemporary scientists who don’t know the meaning of “nothing.” Everybody else does.
G. K. Chesterton wrote: “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” Now, of course, Chesterton was writing at a time when evolutionary theory was not accepted yet even by many scientists, so we can’t fault him for having doubts. Even today, Darwinian evolutionary theory is regularly being revised. But that’s a side point.
Every atheist knows that every pencil requires a pencil maker. Every pencil possesses enough order and intelligibility to require the conclusion of a mind behind the design of a pencil. That rule applies to everything in the created order except, counter intuitively, creation itself. The one exception to the rule, it seems, is the universe. We marvel at The Great Design (thank you, Stephen Hawking) of the universe but atheists (including Hawking) reject the Great Designer. Frankly, I think this says more about atheists than it says about God.
More tomorrow, especially for your comments on Why I Don’t Believe God Exists, Part 4.
LikeLike
You wrote, “So since no one can show their gods exist to ‘your satisfaction’ why don’t you believe in those gods, dear? Is it that they have no evdience for them, just like you have no evidence for your god?”
I don’t believe in the existence of any God or gods. Reason demonstrates the existence of God, so that I know there is a God, and I know there is only one. Faith is what we believe about the God whose existence reason demonstrates. Christians begin with an understanding of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. As such, there can be only one God. For if there were more than one God, they would necessarily be distinct from one another and, if distinct, one would necessarily be greater in some way than the other, so the other would not be God.
No other religious tradition outside the Abrahamic tradition understands God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived, a creator God who stands outside creation, outside time, space, matter, and energy. This understanding of God necessarily rules out all pantheons of gods, Greek or Roman or what-have-you, as irrational. It also rules out Hinduism, which proposes a pantheon of gods, as irrational. It also rules out Gnosticism, which posits two gods, one good and one evil, battling for control of the created order, as irrational. So, you see, I know that the pantheon of Greek gods does not exist. Reason shows that it is impossible. I know that the pantheon of Hindu gods does not exist. Reason shows it is impossible. I am no more an atheist when it comes to Zeus than I am an atheist when it comes to the proposition that 2+2=3. I don’t believe that Zeus doesn’t exist, any more than I believe that 2+2 does not = 3. I know 2+2 does not = 3, and I know that Zeus doesn’t exist.
It is possible to hold for a deistic god from reason alone. The god of deism is simply the God who is God without revelation, since deists hold that God no longer participates in the created order or in the lives of humans since He finished creating. This is the significant difference between Christians and deists. I am not a deist because I’ve experienced the presence and movement of God and His grace in my life. But, again, my being a Christian and not a deist is based on my faith in the revelation given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and my hope to hold on to that faith with the gift of final perseverance.
The evidence for God by reason is plentiful. Catholics have always held that God can be known by reason alone, so that faith is not necessary to hold that there is a God. As such, for Catholics, that there is a God is not an article of faith (hence, the title of my series, “Why I Don’t Believe God Exists”). For Catholics, the first article of faith is that God is Holy Trinity, three Persons in one Divine Being.
That God that is that than which nothing greater can be conceived is the God that can be known by reason, by philosophy. This is why atheism is irrational, because that there is a God can be known by reason, so that atheists continuing to reject that there is a God is contrary to reason and, thus, irrational. Atheists believe there is no God. Atheism is a position of faith, because they reject that there is a God in spite of the rational arguments in favor of there being a God.
Reason can demonstrate the existence of God, but not the Christian God. Reason can only take us so far, but it can take us far enough to know that there is a God. To know that the God who is that than which nothing greater can be conceived is the Christian God, revelation is necessary. Faith is what we believe about the God whose existence reason demonstrates.
You wrote, “it’s hilarious how you seem to think that ignorant people joining cults makes the cult’s claims true.” Another example of either your not reading carefully, or your purposely misrepresenting what I wrote because doing so supports your house of cards. Coming to terms with the fact that there is a God would be emotionally painful for you, I understand. But you, like so many others, would surely find fellowship and support among those who have already come to terms with the fact that there is a God, with His being a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and with the Incarnation of the Son in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and so have put their hope in the promises of Jesus.
LikeLike
“I don’t believe in the existence of any God or gods. Reason demonstrates the existence of God, so that I know there is a God, and I know there is only one”
ROFL. Oh dear. Every cultist claims that reason demonstrates the existence of their god, and again, nto one of you frauds can show that your gods exist at all. You claim there is only one, and yet you can’t show it merely exists or which version of it is the right one. Faith is belief in things unseen per your own bible, so you fail at that too.
Christians often use the ontological argument for their god, and yet they cant’ agree what “greater” even means. Is it greater to allow free will, or is it greater to have predestination? How can you tell? Christains are taught about their god and that’s why you all have different ones. There is no need to have one single god since there can be many with each being the “greater” of that quality. You also assume that there has to be a god at all, a baseless claim that has nothing to support it.
Every cult claims that only their version is the right one, so your whining about how Abrahamic religions understand god to be a certain way doesn’t make it true. No evidence your god exists, or stands out side of creation, since if it is outside of space and time, it literally can do nothing. Your “understanding” of god doesn’t rule out anything since your understanding is baseless opinion. You simply assume a monotheistic god exists and is needed.
You are an atheist when it come to zeus and every other god than your own. Atheism has nothing to do with addition, so your analogy fails miserably. Atheism is simply the conclusion that a god or gods don’t exist.
You then make even more ridiculous claims about a deistic god which you evidently don’t believe in. You aren’t a deist since you are an arrogant woman who pretends only she is right and her best friend is the creator of the universe that agrees with her and only her.
Every cultist claims that they have experience with their gods and surprise, not a one of you frauds can support that claim for yourselves, or show that other theists are wrong about their experiences.
For all of your claims that evidence for your god is plentiful, you never can seem to offer any. Catholics, Muslims, Zoroasterians, Hindus, etc all make the same claims as you do dear, so you have nothing better than anyone else. Reason doesn’t show your god exists at all, and any argument you use from supposed “reason” can be applied to any ofthese imaginary friends. Including the ontological argument you are so fond of. Your delusion that you and only you know what is “greater” fails.
You have nothing *but* baseless belief that your version of your god exists.
It’s hilarious how you then come up with this nonsense which destroys all of your other claims: “Reason can demonstrate the existence of God, but not the Christian God. Reason can only take us so far, but it can take us far enough to know that there is a God. To know that the God who is that than which nothing greater can be conceived is the Christian God, revelation is necessary. Faith is what we believe about the God whose existence reason demonstrates.”
So your particular god can’t be known by reason. You don’t believe in this “god” that can be known by only reason at all.
Unsurprsingly I did not misrepresent what you wrote at all. You have repeatedly trie to claim this “In fact, the tide seems to be turning, and old fashioned religion is making a bit of a comeback among the younger generation. The convert class at my parish is 29 strong, and there are many young men among them. The average age of our catechumens is 23. The average age of our candidates is 29. And we have four confirmandi, all of whom are under the age of thirty. I suppose many young people have realized the hollowness of secular society and the so very little it has to offer, especially in terms of meaning and meaningful relationships.” Which is nothing more than you trying to claim that since ignorant people join my cult, my cult must be true. Any theist can make the same claim as you do. Are you impressed with the fact that millions have become Muslim?
No god and no evidence for a god. Why would it be emotionally painful for me to realize your petty god exists? I’d still not worship it and do my best to destroy it. I don’t need “fellowship” with delusional human beings who fantasize that anyone who dares not agree with them deserves eternal torture. Like all cults, you promise friendship and love, and offer none, just your need for obedience.
LikeLike
Clubshad… Thank you for your replies. I enjoy respectful, meaningful conversation. With atheists, I ignore the disrespect if the topic is meaningful. If I objected to the disrespect, I would rarely be able to converse with atheists, as they have a habit of employing insults as substitutes for good arguments. I see you’re no exception to this habit.
I’ll reply at length when I get home to my laptop. My phone isn’t conducive to long posts with multiple references. I’ll be home this evening. Tootles until then.
LikeLike