If you are just joining this series of articles, please go back to the first one to see what I’m writing within the full context. Again, the point I’m making is that all the possible answers to the big questions including why we exist, have absurdities somewhere, yet one of them is likely correct.

This discussion of atheism’s absurdities will not be comprehensive, in the same way that I was not comprehensive when I discussed the absurdities of my own Christian view.

Regarding atheism I want to look at four categories of absurdities, including fundament, origins, order, and self-awareness.

Fundament

Atheism, by definition, is a point of certainty that there is no god. Anything less than certainty would be agnosticism. Most atheists hold their certainty because they believe the narrative that religion is the result of superstition for the individual who has no other plausible explanation for the phenomena of the universe, including its very existence. Because the atheist has a plausible explanation for most of these phenomena, including the Big Bang, and evolution, they think they have no need to believe in a god. Additionally, since there is no “proof” of the existence of a god, therefore there is no god. In contrast, most atheist-cosmologist assume there is life somewhere else in the universe. Why? Not based on the evidence, as there is none so far (a few exoplanets recently have shown hints of life, such as K2-18b that has signs of water, CO2, dimethyl sulfide (DMS), and methane, possible markers of life) because they held these views long before we had any evidence. But based on assumptions alone.

While priding themselves in a higher level of cognition, this fundamental tenet is irrational and absurd. Just ask Aristotle, reaching an absolute conclusion without any evidence of that conclusion, but because your narrative sees no evidence of the alternative (theism).

Some atheists would say, “Now wait a minute. There is evidence of atheism in the same way you can say there is no horse in the stable because I looked and there was no horse.” A confirmative negative.

Here is the problem with that. To “see God” requires God to work in ways that are against the natural laws to stand out against the background (miracles in other words). This is why, in the 1977 movie Oh God, God (played by George Burns) is required to do a miracle in court to prove he is God. So, he does a card trick . . . then disappears. So, if this God lives within the seen cosmos and works by the natural laws (which they created), he/she becomes invisible or camouflaged. If they live in a (say “dimension”) outside our seen universe then they are seeable, but our senses, which are confined to the laws of this dimension are useless for peering into that other realm.

This is where I found atheists following the same path of the religious, making huge assumptions and conclusions based on very limited data. This is why I consider agnosticism as rational at this juncture, but not atheism, having no advantage over the most superstitious of religions.

What I am saying doesn’t prove God’s existence, but proves how irrational it is for an atheist, with a finite knowledge of reality, can say with certainty there is no God. Maybe there is no God that follows the subjective narrative they have created. That is the absurdity of the fundament or first principle of atheism.

Mike