HOW TO REFUTE ATHEISM OR ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW

Definition of Terms:
Presupposition: That which is supposed, assumed, or taken for granted
beforehand or from the onset, i.e. assumption.
Premise: a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or
follows as a conclusion.
Syllogism: a form of deductive reasoning (general premises to specific conclusion)
consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
Axiomatic: That which is self-evident. That which is taken for granted or
presupposed by all, based upon an intrinsic merit. An axiom, maxim, statement, or
principle which is assumed by all as a first truth of reason.
Metaphysics: The study of the fundamental or essential nature of reality.
Epistemology: The study or theories of the nature and grounds of knowledge,
especially with reference to its validity and limits.
Axiology: The study of values and judgments especially as it relates to ethics.
Empiricism: A particular epistemological theory that states that all knowledge is
acquired by, and limited to, the five senses of touch, taste, sight, hearing, and
smell. It is a perspective that states only the physical or material world exists.
How to Refute Atheism:
1. Atheists often misrepresent and slander the character of God. It is
necessary to study the arguments atheists have against Gods character,
as these are the most necessary to be refuted.
Atheists often charge that the God of the Bible endorsed and promoted slavery,
genocide, etc. Study the Bible intensely, therefore, to see what the Bible really says
about these things.
Genocide is the murder or destruction of a people group based upon their ethnicity
or race, like what Hitler did to the Jews in Second World War. It was an ethnic
cleansing. Gods judgment upon people is based upon their ethics. The destruction
of cities and people was not because of the color of their skin but because of the
corruption of their sin (Deut. 20:16-18). God did not only wipe out an entire race in
Noahs times but he wiped out the entire world due to their wickedness. Gods
destruction of people groups was therefore not genocide, but a judgment against
their wickedness. But atheists, like Richard Dawkins, capitalized on these negative
acts, to question Gods character. According to Dawkins the killing of the Canaanites
was an act of ethnic cleansing in which bloodthirsty massacres were carried out
with xenophobic relish (i.e. fearful with strangers or non-Israelites). God loves non-

Israelites too. He promised Abraham, All peoples on earth will be blessed through
you (Gen. 12:3). The Bible gave laws and regulations about proper and fair
treatment toward foreigners. In the Book of Jonah God did not destroy the Ninivites,
Israels enemy, when they repented of their sins. Dawkins isnt exactly interested in
accuracy; he resorts to misleading rhethoric to sway the people to question Gods
character.
Recommended book: Is God a Moral Monster? By Paul Copan It provides a lot of
questions with regards to biblical practices sanctioned by God but are offensive to
modern thinking.
Oftentimes it is the misunderstanding of the character of God that keeps an atheist
back from submitting, serving, and worshipping Him. Therefore, believers ought to
study the Scriptures diligently to know and understand the good character and just
ways of God, in order to properly and adequately defend Him from the attacks of
the world.
2. When seeking to engage in an intellectual discussion or debate with an
atheist, it is good to be familiar with the laws of logic and the various
logical fallacies that exist.
A common argument by Atheists: I cannot believe in anything unless I see it. I
cannot see God therefore I cant believe in Him.
Premise 1: I cant believe in anything unless I see it.
Premise 2: I cant see God.
Conclusion: Therefore I cant believe in Him.
This does not hold water. Because if we follow the same logic it will backfire to the
atheist; it will destroy his own argument.
Premise 1: I cant believe in anything unless I see it.
Premise 2: I cant see the idea of the atheist. (An idea is a concept it cannot be
observed by the eyes).
Conclusion: Therefore I cant believe in the idea of the atheist.
The reason that the argument of the atheist does not hold water because it is not a
valid argument. In order for an argument to be valid it must have true or correct
premises. If one or more premise
is false the argument will lead to a false conclusion.
So the laws of logic will be helpful to have a rational and logical debate with
atheists.

There are a lot of materials about logic and critical thinking in the internet, just
google it. I recommend www.apologetics315 under the audio page. You can
download for free an audio teaching on logic and critical thinking.
3. It is important to analyze a discussion with any unbeliever to see if you
are on the offensive or the defensive. It is necessary for a believer to
defend the faith, but you must be mindful not to let an atheist keep you in
the defensive the entire time, as their position is the weakest one of all
and ought to be exposed as such.
Example: Atheists claim that religion has killed more people and has caused more
wars than anything else.
The Christian would be on the defensive by stating that atheists are exaggerating,
as its estimated that 200,000 died in the crusades, at most 200,000 died in the
European and American witch hunts, and around 2,000 people were killed in the
inquisitions, etc.
The Christian would be on the offensive by stating that atheism has killed millions,
particularly through the Soviet Union, as atheism was one of their fundamental
beliefs. The atheistic Soviet Union murdered 61,000,000 people!
Do not be so preoccupied with answering the attacks of an atheist that you never
get to expose the foundation of his worldview as insufficient and faulty. If you allow
it, an atheist will keep you on the defensive so that their own foundation and
worldview is never challenged or critiqued.
The arguments of atheists will continue to come against God and against
Christianity unless it is shown that they have no ground to stand upon. If you cripple
an enemy he can no longer fight. Therefore, a defensive approach will only be
useful if it is coupled with an offensive approach as well.
4. Dont try to reason with the atheists merely on an evidential
level. Argumentation on a purely evidential level will be futile and endless,
as all evidence that is presented will be reinterpreted by the
presuppositions of their own world view.
For example an atheist can look at the similarities there are between different
species of animals and concludes that they had a common ancestor from which
they evolved. A theist will look at the similarities of various species and conclude
that they had a common designer. The same exact fact is interpreted by each
persons presupposition to fit their particular worldview.
Another example, a theist will argue for Gods existence for answered prayers. But
the same fact can be interpreted by the atheist as a coincidence. So it is not really
helpful to just focus on evidences because these can be subjected to different
intepretations.
5. Their worldview or system of thought needs to be internally critiqued.

An external critique is when you challenge someone elses worldview using the
premise and propositions of your own worldview.
For example, you may argue, I do not believe in pantheism because the Bible
says
An external critique may give you as a Christian a reason not to accept someone
elses view, but that will not convince them to accept your reason because they
dont believe in the Bible and the Bible is not the authority that they recognize. An
external critique is only helpful to show how your belief is different from them and
where your belief is based from, but it will not really convince them to abandon their
worldview and embrace your worldview. But if you do internal critique, meaning you
take their own presuppositions, arguments and basis, and critique them, and if you
were able to show the problem or fault of their presuppositons, there is a bigger
chance that you can win them over to your side.
When I asked you in your report to give Biblical references where the worldview
your studying contradicts the Scriptures, it helps us see as Bible believers the
problems of that worldview, but those who believe that worldview will not see them
as problems, again for the reason that they dont make the Bible as their basis of
belief. If they are Bible believers, then external critique is an effective approach, and
we do that against cults because most of them believe in the Bible.
a. By adopting their premise, show them that the logical conclusions that can be
drawn from that premise are absurd. Take their system to a conclusion, showing
that this conclusion is inevitable given their premise. This method is called reductio
ad absurdum or argumentum ad absurdum meaning reduce to absurdity.
Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to
absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits
and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or
discrediting the argument.
An example of an internal critique that reduces a position to absurdity is found in
the logical reasoning of the Apostle Paul. He took for granted, for the sake of
argument, a false presupposition and took it to a conclusion that he knew they
would be unwilling to accept: But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is
Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith
is also vain (1 Cor. 15:13).
b. By adopting their presuppositions, point out their systemic contradictions.
For example, lets take for granted the naturalistss presupposition that only those
who exists in the material realm are real and we are to believe only on the things
that are real. If we take for granted that it is true, it will follow that ideas are not
real because ideas have no material existence. And since according to naturalism
we should not believe anything that is not real, therefore we should not believe any
ideas including naturalism because naturalism is an idea.
So here by taking for granted their presupposition, you are showing the weakness
and contradiction of that presupposition.

c. By taking for granted their presuppositions, show them that their system is selfrefuting that it cannot stand on its own foundation and that it destroys itself.
The former example can also be used here.
For example, according to existentialists and humanists truth is relative. This
position is self-defeating or self-refuting. If truth is relative, then that statement is
relative because that is being asserted by the existentialists as a true statement.
The proposition defeats itself.
d. We are not to take for granted their presuppositions to try to prove our own
worldview, as this would never work, but rather to take their presuppositions to
disprove their own worldview.
That is, we are not to try to prove Christianity to the unbeliever by assuming that
their epistemology, metaphysics, or axiology are accurate and providing to them
arguments based upon their requirements. Rather, we are to assume their
presuppositions or step into their shoes and look out through their eyes, in order to
show that their own system is faulty and false. Then we are to show that our own
worldview is consistent within itself which they would see, if they adopted our own
presuppositions.
For example, an atheist presupposes the epistemology of empiricism. Since the
atheist has established his own senses as the ultimate authority by which he tests
all things and through which he claims all knowledge is acquired, should we try to
prove God to him using empiricism? No, his epistemology is unchristian and even
anti-God, since from the onset it establishes the boundaries to the material only and
thus excludes even the possibility of the immaterial God. So instead of trying to
prove the existence of God by adopting his presupposition, we should adopt his
presuppositions and use them to show his own system to be faulty. We should show
him that empiricism destroys itself as an epistemology.
The presuppositions of an atheist need to be challenged through internal critiques,
showing that they are self-defeating, reduced to absurdity, contradictory,
insufficient, and utterly groundless.
6. Deal with these three major categories in refuting atheism or any major
worlview:
Metaphysics: Their theory of the nature of reality.
Epistemology: Their theory of knowledge.
Axiology: Their theory of ethics.
Metaphysical critique:
a. An atheist takes for granted his own conscious existence. Apart from an infinite
conscious first cause, how can he account for his own finite conscious existence?
It is a matter of fact or a first truth of reason that what is finite requires a cause, and
that a cause must be equal to or greater than its effect. This is the established

scientific law of cause and effect. Cause and effect is a law of logic. Our conscious
existence is finite as it had a beginning and therefore required a cause. How then
does an atheist account for his own conscious existence? As consciousness is
greater than unconsciousness, unconsciousness cannot be the cause of
consciousness. Our first cause cannot, therefore, be anything that is unconscious.
But as atheists reject the notion of an infinite conscious being who created us, what
adequate first cause of consciousness can they suggest? If there is no infinite
sentient God, the consciousness of an atheist cannot be accounted for.
b. An atheist takes for granted uniformity in nature, upon which scientific law is
established. How can he account for this uniformity?
Every individual assumes the uniformity of nature throughout their life. It is what
stops us from touching the stove when we know it is hot. We know that if it burned
when it was hot before, it will burn when it is hot later. It is why we put shoes on
before we go for a walk. We assume that the law of gravitation will still be in place,
causing us to walk on our feet. It is why we will drink a cold glass of water when we
are thirsty, as we take for granted from previous experience that it will quench our
thirst. Countless instances can be quoted to show that atheists take for granted the
uniformity of nature throughout their life, as does everyone else.
Any scientific law, such as the law of gravity, presupposes the uniformity of nature.
It takes for granted that what happens in a single instance or in a series of instances
will continue to occur in the future, if all the variables are identical and the
circumstances are the same. There would be no basis to establish scientific law if
the uniformity of nature was not taken for granted.
What right do atheists have then to take for granted the uniformity of nature? If
there is no law-giver, what foundation or source can there be for law? If there is no
Supreme Ruler or Governor of the physical world, is not the belief in a continual and
consistent uniformity in nature, upon which scientific law is established, nothing
more than blind faith or wishful thinking on their part? It is clear that atheists, as do
all people, take the uniformity of nature for granted. But why they are able to do so,
given their worldview, is not understandable.
Epistemological critique:
a. An atheist takes for granted His own intelligence and He launches His attacks
against God by the use (or misuse) of His reason and logic. But how can he account
for the existence of these things granted his presupposition that there is no God?
The Christian can account for the intelligence of man by stating that we have been
made in the image of God. However, the atheist cannot give such an account for
human intelligence.
i. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, as that would mean the effect is
greater than its cause. What adequate cause of intelligence can the atheistic
worldview provide? All that has a beginning must have a cause. Human existence
and consequently human intelligence had a starting point. Therefore, it must have
had a cause. But if there was no intelligence in the beginning, how could

intelligence come about? There would be no adequate cause to bring about its
existence! Gods existence is therefore a necessary presupposition for the existence
of intelligibility.
ii. Reason and logic have no adequate cause or source of origin in the atheistic
worldview, as we were not made in the image of a reasonable and logical God.
Where did mans reason come from in their view? What, besides a reasonable
Creator, can be the adequate cause of rationality within man? It is unreasonable for
an atheist to even believe in reason, given his presupposition that there is no God.
He has no right to believe in reason as he cannot provide the necessary foundation
of it.
iii. If an atheist is going to limit himself to his five senses, or empiricism, he has no
right to use or believe in the laws of logic. Empiricism says only what is material
exists and if we cannot experience it with our five senses, we cannot affirm its
existence. The laws of logic are not material but are immaterial. We cannot
experience the laws of logic with our five senses. They are conceptual, an idea or
thought of the mind. Therefore, an empiricist or an atheist cannot use the laws of
logic since according to their own system the laws of logic do not exist!
iv. If an atheist is going to limit himself to empiricism and claim that only the
physical world exist, then how can an atheist believe in any thoughts or ideas at all?
Thoughts or ideas are not physical objects. They cannot be examined with any of
the five senses. Thoughts and ideas are immaterial. Yet if an atheist claims that only
the physical exists, then nothing immaterial exists. In this case the atheist has
essentially argued that thoughts and ideas must either be physical objects, which is
absurd, or that thoughts and ideas do not exist, which is even more absurd!
Empiricism is a thought or a notion which states only what is physical exists and can
be known. Empiricism itself is not a physical object and therefore, according to its
own standard, it cannot exist or be known!
The notion of empiricism itself is an immaterial thought, and therefore, the notion
that only the physical world exists is refuted by the existence of the immaterial idea
of empiricism. In other words, the existence of the thought of empiricism refutes the
point of empiricism. The existence of the thought refutes the point of the thought. It
would be equivalent to saying, I do not think that thoughts exist. If you think that
thoughts do not exist, then apparently thoughts do exist. So your thought, that
there are no such things as thoughts, is proven wrong by the existence of your
thought.
b. An atheist takes for granted the reliability of his five senses what adequate
cause can atheists put forward for this reliability?
In almost all that we do, we take for granted that our five senses are reliable. In
order for an atheist to show up at a debate, he has to assume this. Every time he
takes a step, stops at a stop sign, has a conversation with someone, etc, he is
assuming the reliability of his senses. It would be impossible to have a conversation
with an atheist if he didnt, as he couldnt know for sure what you were saying and
couldnt be confident that you would hear what he was saying. As effects cannot be

greater than their causes, what adequate cause can atheists put forward for our five
senses?
Certainly, they would not say a being that has any senses is that first cause. They
choose to admit a senseless first cause, which is not an adequate cause of senses
at all. Atheists take for granted that they have these senses, but they provide no
adequate cause or state any intelligible account of how they have these senses.
If we are the product of mere time and chance and our existence is the random
accident of the universe, upon what basis can trust be placed upon our senses
being reliable? In other words, as
Christians we can trust in the reliability of our senses knowing that we were created
and designed by God who gave us these senses to perceive the material world
around us, but if an atheist cannot account for how he has these senses, upon what
can he base his confidence for their accuracy or be able to account for their
accuracy? A person has no right to take for granted the reliability of their senses
and has no ability to account for their reliability, unless they presuppose that they
have been designed and created by an intelligent and sensible God.
Axiological critique: An atheist takes for granted a sense of morality, where did
the atheist get his sense of morality?
Many of the attacks that atheists make against Christians, the Bible, Christianity, or
God, are based upon their own set of standards or sense of morality. Christians are
hypocrites, The Bible promotes slavery, Christianity has been the cause of
wars, The God of the Bible is unjust.
Where did the atheist get his sense of morality? What makes his standard of
morality authoritative instead of arbitrary? For if the laws of morality are not
legislated and revealed to us by a transcendent, infinite mind, the laws of morality
are reduced to nothing more than the mere thoughts of finite minds or the arbitrary
inventions of our will. There may be thoughts that finite minds havent experienced
yet, so our finite cannot be the basis for absolute and universal moral law. And an
arbitrary invention of a beings will cannot create universal obligation, thus if moral
law is the mere arbitration of an individual it cannot have absolute. Atheists do not
believe that there is a God with an infinite divine mind, who knows with absolute
certainty what behavior is good and beneficial and what behavior is not, and who
reveals His infinite and divine thoughts to our minds through the voice of
conscience, reason, and the Scriptures.
If morality doesnt come from God, where does it come from? If morality is merely
the finite thoughts of the collective society, or the arbitrary standards of the
individual, then how could any society or individual be morally wrong? If morality is
not absolute or like a solid rock, but is relative or like clay that can be molded by
each individual and society, then no individual or society could ever be morally
wrong. The Nazis were not wrong for putting Jews in the ghettos and concentration
camps, for that is what their society determined was good to do. Neither are
cannibal tribes morally wrong, as that is what their society determined is right and
proper behavior. If morality is the invention of the finite individual or comes from
the collective society, atheists cannot condemn the crusades, witch hunts, or

inquisitions, as that is what individuals and society thought and determined were
right and good in their day.
The atheistic system contradicts itself when it provides no basis for absolute
morality but rather lays the foundation for moral relativism, and then to make
objections against Christianity as if morality were absolute. Since it is evident that
their system of thought cannot produce absolute moral law, as it provides no
adequate basis or foundation for it, and consequently wicked societies and great
evils like that of the Nazis cannot be condemned as absolutely morally wrong, there
system is evidently reduced to absurdity. But as all men know that society and
individuals can be morally wrong, then all men assume that morality is not the mere
creation of finite minds or the arbitrary standards of the individual but that it comes
from a transcendent and infinite mind that legislates over us.

HOW TO DEFEND THEISM

The existence of a transcendent, infinite, intelligent God is to be defended and
argued as a necessary starting point or presupposition, apart from which we cannot
account for the nature of things as they are. In other words, we argue for the
existence of God upon the impossibility of the contrary.
1. The Metaphysical Necessity for God:
A. The existence of anything finite necessitates the existence of the infinite.
Let us look at this argument step by step:
a. The law of cause and effect is a recognized scientific law that states that all
effects must have a cause and that the cause must be equal to or greater than the
effect. (Atheists recognize this law)
Major premise: All effects must have a cause.
Minor premise: An effect is anything that has a beginning.
Conclusion: Therefore, anything that has a beginning must have a cause.
b. The law of cause and effect is axiomatic. It is a self-evident truth or a truth that
goes under the category of a first truth or a truth that is known a priori, (a
prayoree) which all assume or presuppose.
In epistemology there are two types of knowledge:
A priori knowledge independent of experience or experiement (All bachelors are
unmarried). You don't have to do any experiment or inquiry or science for this
knowledge.
A posteriori knowledge is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for
example "Some bachelors are very unhappy").

The law of cause and effect is an intuitive principle, an a priori knowledge,

developed in the mind as early on as infancy, as babies will cry to try to get
something they want. They assume that something will happen as a result of
crying. Everything we do in this world take for granted that we assume the law of
cause and effect. Everything from brushing our teeth, to driving to work, to making
dinner, all assume the law of cause and effect.
Even to argue that the law of cause and effect does not exist, itself takes for
granted the law of cause and effect, for you are trying to persuade someones mind
to change (an effect) with your argument (a cause).
You cannot deny or dismiss the law of cause and effect. The universe follows the
law of cause and effect. So to say that nothing or no one caused the universe is
against this established principle. The question is who caused it? Or what caused it?
c. The First Cause cannot be finite but must be infinite.
We have already established the fact that all have a cause, and we know that as a
priori knowledge that all that is being caused is finite. You cannot that a thing is
finite if nothing caused it.
1) Consider the following syllogisms:
Major premise: All effects require a cause.
Minor premise: All that is finite are effects.
Conclusion: Therefore, all that are finite had a cause.
or
Major premise: All that had a beginning had a cause.
Minor premise: All that had a beginning is finite.
Conclusion: Therefore, all that is finite had a cause.
This brings us to the notion of the First Cause (the Original Cause). Even science
recognize that there is a First Cause to the Universe only that they wont recognize
it as God.
The First Cause, by definition, cannot be finite. If it were finite, it would have had a
cause. And if it had a cause, it would not be the First Cause. Therefore, the First
Cause must necessarily be infinite. Only the infinite qualifies to be the uncaused
First Cause as only that which is self-existent or eternal needs no cause. Thats why
science are not sure whether the universe is finite or infinite. But many of them
believe in Big Bang Theory and this is the most accepted theory in Science . If Big
Bang is a correct theory, then it will all the more prove of the existence of God
because it will not happen if nobody caused it, again the principle of cause and
effect. If Big Bang is caused by nothing it contradicts the law of cause and effect.
And Big Bang cannot be infinite for it will destroy the universe.
If there is a First Cause the onlylogical conclusion is that the first cause must be
infinite, meaning must have no beginning.

Major premise: The First Cause cannot have a cause.

Minor premise: All that is finite needed a cause.
Conclusion: Therefore, the First Cause cannot be finite.
Major premise: The First Cause had no cause.
Minor premise: Only the infinite or self-existent can have no cause.
Conclusion: Therefore, the First Cause is infinite or self-existent.
What is the proof than that the infinite exists? The answer is the existence of the
finite. That which is finite cannot exist if the infinite does not exist. The finite is not
self-existent. The finite can only exist if there is a self-existent or infinite First Cause.
Therefore, anything finite is absolute proof of the infinite. God is necessarily
antecedent to all finite things. As I said earlier, all that we see in this world is proof
that there is a God.
d. God, as an infinite self-existent being, requires no cause.
Atheists often ask, If everything had a cause, what caused God? This question
shows both the illogical fallaciousness of their thinking and their utter
misunderstanding of the First Cause argument. It is not that everything has a cause,
but only what is finite or had a beginning requires a cause. God, as an infinite selfexistent being, requires no cause. There was no beginning to His existence, His
consciousness, His intelligence, His complexities, etc. Therefore, these things
require no cause.
But as it is evident that human beings are not infinite or self-existent, but that we
are finite and had a beginning, we therefore needed a cause to bring about our
existence.
Major premise: The existence of anything finite required a cause.
Minor premise: The existence of our world is finite.
Conclusion: Therefore, the existence of our world required a cause.
2. The Epistemological Necessity for God: The existence of consciousness,
intelligence, logic, reason, rational, and personality all requires or necessitates the
existence of God.
a. Effects cannot be greater than their cause.
This an established scientific fact accepted by all rational minds.
b. Consciousness is greater than unconsciousness, intelligence is greater than
unintelligence, logic is greater than the illogical, rational is greater than the
irrational, reason is greater than unreasonableness, sense is greater than
senselessness, and personality is greater than the impersonal.
i. These are self-evident truths that are recognized and presupposed by all
intelligent minds.

ii. That we view consciousness as greater than unconsciousness is evidenced by the

fact that we would prefer to be humans than to be a rock.
iii. That we view intelligence as greater than unintelligence is evidenced by the fact
that we seek to educate ourselves and our children.
iv. That we view logic as greater than the illogical, rational as greater than the
irrational, and reason as greater than the unreasonable, is evidenced by the fact
that we expect to hear logical, rational, reasonable arguments to believe or to do
something and look down upon that which is illogical, irrational, and unreasonable.
v. That we view sense as greater than senselessness is evidenced by the fact that
when one of our senses is damaged or lost, we recognize this as a terrible
misfortune and great loss.
vi. That personality is greater than the impersonal is evidenced by the fact that we
all prefer companionship with a living person than with a volleyball.
c. Human beings are personalities that have been giving consciousness and
intelligence and are endowed with the gift of logic, reason, rational, and sense. Our
cause, therefore, must be a conscious, intelligent, logical, reasonable, rational,
sensible, personable being.
As effects cannot be greater than their cause, the First Cause cannot be an
unconscious, unintelligent, illogical, unreasonable, irrational, senseless, impersonal,
thing.
Major premise: Effects cannot be greater than their cause.
Minor premise: Humans are effects.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans cannot be greater than their cause.
Major premise: The cause must be equal to, or greater than, the effect.
Minor premise: Humans are conscious and intelligent personalities with the ability of
logic, reason, rational, and sense.
Conclusion: Therefore, the cause of humans must be a conscious and intelligent
personality with the ability of logic, reason, rational, and sense.
3. The Axiological or Ethical Necessity for God: The existence of absolute
morality necessitates the existence of God.
a. As was shown earlier, there is no basis for an absolute moral truth or law apart
from an infinite transcendent mind that legislates over us and grants us this
revelation.
If the laws of morality do not originate in Gods divine and infinite mind, then the
laws of morality must originate in mans own finite mind or arbitrary will.

There can be no basis for a universal moral law, obligatory upon all, if the origin of
moral law is the arbitrary will of the individual.
There can be no basis for a universal moral truth, or an absolute morality, if moral
laws originate in mans finite mind, as no two finite minds think perfectly alike.
The only way that finite minds can be absolutely sure about the rightness of a moral
law, is if there is a transcendent and infinite mind that can be appealed to, or which
is the source and origin of the moral law.
If the laws of morality are invented by the individual or the society, what is to say
that a particular individual or society is morally wrong? There would be no moral
standard above society by which to judge the moral rightness or wrongness of it, as
the society would have authority over all moral standards. Morality would
consequently be relative.
In which case, societies that engaged in genocide, slavery, cannibalism, torture, etc,
cannot be objectively or absolutely condemned as morally wrong.
But as all individuals intuitively know that societies have been morally wrong, all
individuals presuppose that moral law does not come from the society but is rather
above the society and the society is subjected to it, rather than it being subjected to
society.
All rational moral beings know that there is an absolute standard of morality. For
example, we all naturally know that murder, or the unjustified killing of a human
life, is wrong. Even a murder knows that murder is wrong, not only because he will
suffer from the pains of conscience for doing so, but because he doesnt want
anyone to murder him! He takes for granted that his life is valuable and that taking
it would be a bad thing.
Men may talk about morality being relative, but in their hearts they know it to be
absolute. And since a sense of absolute morality exists in the rational minds of all
men, this shows that ultimately all rational minds presuppose the source and origin
of moral law to transcend their own finite minds and arbitrary wills, for if they truly
assumed that moral law originated in their own finite minds or arbitrary wills, they
could not affirm it to be absolute or affirm its obligation to be universal.
b.
The real ethical problem of an athiest is that he refuses to acknowledge the
truth.
An atheist is a rebel against God, who knows that there is a God but who refuses to
serve Him (Rom. 1:21).
An atheist is someone who has been exposed to more than sufficient reasons to
believe in and serve God, but they choose to rather suppress this knowledge and
choose darkness rather than light (Jn. 1:9; 3:19; Rom. 1:18).
The purpose, therefore, of showing the irrationality of atheism and the self
contradictions and self defeating principles of its system is simply to show the

atheist that as an atheist, he is a rebel against God who has no sufficient reasons
for rejecting the Lord. The purpose is to confront him in his rebellion, exhort him to
consider his ways, call him to repent of his enmity against God, and to find salvation
through Jesus Christ. Show the atheist the foolishness of his ways, the moral and
intellectual repulsiveness of his own system, the sufficient reasons that exist to
have faith in God, his guilt and inexcusableness before the Lord, and his desperate
need for God to pardon His crimes by His mercy and to remit the execution of His
deserved penalty through the atonement of Jesus Christ!