As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe. But to play devil’s advocate, could the cosmos with all its planets be a brute, eternal fact? Scientifically, the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago. But what if our understanding of science is flawed, as well as belief in Scripture?

When we perceive design in something, we assume that there is a designer who designed it. But hypothetically, what if things just are the way they are, and the universe just is?

Our justification for believing something is designed is based on things that are not designed. We see written, “I was designed to write this on the sand” on a beach and believe it was designed compared to blank patches of sand with some sea ripples upon it. As for the universe, if everything is dependent on its opposite (design v non-design, etc), does the cosmos have an opposite? And could that opposite be nothingness? Paradoxically, is ‘nothing’ a ‘something’? (I feel my brain is beginning to explode!). Let’s see what Richard Dawkins has to say about it: https://youtu.be/cPlTsWFYBIM

As a younger atheist man, my world view was based on Instrumentalism: A pragmatic theory that ideas are instruments that function as guides of action, their validity being determined by the success of the action, the view that the sanction of truth is its utility, or that truth is genuine only in so far as it is a valuable instrument. I even sometimes questioned the existence of other minds apart from my own mind (solipsism).

To debunk the above hypothesis, all questions and theories led me back to God, scientifically, historically, and, most importantly, existentially. My atheism lapsed when I realised I believed in a phantom god, as God was written across my heart, intelligently designed by our Creator.

The problem with being ultra-sceptical and hypothesising about everything, one has to do likewise on both scepticism and hypothesising. Such a state of mind is unliveable. Then there is the moral question.

How can one live their lives if objective moral values and duties don’t exist? A simple syllogism answers that question by a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist; but objective moral values and duties do exist (it’s a moral abomination to rape, murder, or torture a baby for fun); therefore, God exists.

I have watched hundreds of atheist v theist arguments and, in the early days, I always thought that science/Naturalism argument would win the debate, but such arguments were always won by the power of the moral question.

In a podcast (Science, God, and Truth: Michael Shermer and Michael Egnor | Mind Matters) last April in Mind Matters featuring Michael Shermer and the world’s greatest brain surgeon, Dr Michael Egnor, Sherman says: “Humans no more have souls than do chimps, gorillas, whales, or my Chocolate lab, Hitch.”

If true, this means his statement is that of a dumb animal, a friendly dog, void of self-monologue and/or philosophical reflections. Who would trust a statement, if he could talk, from a chocolate Lab called ‘Hitch’ or a chimp eating a banana? You’ll never see a whale, chimp or gorilla?

But Shermer’s argument gets worse: Animals are not moral agents, thus on the atheist’s world view, murder and rape are neither morally right nor wrong if God does not exist. Shermer seems a decent chap but can he justify his belief in Truth and objective morality if God does not exist? On Naturalism, the rapist or murderer is just acting out of fashion, according to Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.

As for freedom of the will: I stand corrected on this, but is Sermer confused on the difference between instinctual decision-choosing and morally choosing?

On Naturalism, humans (and other creatures) never ‘discovered’ they could choose, as they were always endowed with instinctual decision-making attributes based on appetite or survival requirements. Similarly, robots can ‘decide’ when ‘choosing’ to make a move playing chess or other functions. The input of the information into the system [by humans], will influence the moves it makes. But my question is on the existence of freedom of the will and choosing morally, based on objective moral values and duties.

On atheism, atoms just blindly bump into one another. Also, be careful using terms such as ‘ostensibly better,’ ‘one choice better than the other,’ or ‘doing what is right’ (on atheism, says who?). Such terms, subjectively, bring great comfort to the psychopaths of this world. I wrote about this here: The Confusion of Buridan’s Ass – New English Review

To repeat, objective moral values and duties do not exist without God, and most atheists’ disbelief in God is psychologically based and not ontological. Shermer is an intelligent gentleman and admitted he’s not a philosopher, yet 95% of his arguments are philosophically based. 

So, in conclusion, could the universe be a brute fact with no design as you read the words in this article typed by designed hands which in turn was designed by an all-powerful, eternal Creator? Intelligent design is real, time to get over it, atheists.