Several Atheists like to complain that Theism, unlike Atheism is unfalsifiable. If this is true, then it means that Atheism can be proven false, Theism cannot. Many Atheists consider this to be a strong point for Atheism and a weak point for Theism. The problem is, since Atheism CAN be proven false, then IF it IS proven false, then Theism (its negation) would necessarily be proven true. When there are only two possible answers for a proposition, and one of them is proven false, then the other is necessarily true. Consider the question "Does God Exist?" There are only two possible answers, "yes" and "no". If the answer "no" was proven false, then the only alternative answer remaining is "yes". (MP3 Audio | RSS | iTunes)
The way I choose to show Atheism false is by showing the self contradictions contained within the Atheistic worldview. Logically speaking, if a proposition contains necessary consequences that are themselves self-contradictory, then the proposition cannot be true. For example, there are no living corpses, there are no unemployed employees, and there is no dehydrated water.
According to a few famous Atheists, here are a few necessary consequences of Atheism. There is no God; there is nothing but the physical world (Dan Barker – Protest sign at the Washington State Capital). Humans are nothing but machines that generate DNA (Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion). Morality is based on the consensus of human beings (Gordon Stein – “The Great Debate: Does God Exist?”). If this is true then it would be impossible to account for things such as moral absolutes, laws of logic, or human dignity; three things that we all understand to be indisputable.
Every Atheist I've ever met believes that murder and rape is evil. But what is evil? I thought all that exists is matter. Is there anything evil about matter? Does the knife care that someone used it to kill someone? Of course not. Perhaps evil is just something that we experience as decreasing our happiness. Wouldn't that mean that since the rapist increases his happiness by raping people, then raping people would be considered good for him? Who's to say that the rapist's moral judgments are flawed and ours are not?
Once an atheist woman told me that she heard that her co-worker was cheating on his wife with another woman from the office. She told me that she was outraged at how immoral he was and how she lost all respect for him. I asked her “What was so wrong with what he did?” Why does the fact that he’s married make the act of sex with another woman immoral? She simply said “Its just wrong!” I agree, but I’d like to know why it’s ultimately wrong given the Atheistic worldview.
Laws of Logic
Consider the law of “excluded middle” which says that a proposition is either true or false, there is no third option. What is the ontological foundation of this law? Is this law just a result of the chemical functions in our brain? If so then how is it universal? Is the law material? Of course not! Laws of logic are immaterial abstract entities, the very things that cannot exist if the only thing that exists is matter.
Dan Barker, in a debate with Dr. James White, attempted to refute this argument by saying that “logic is not a thing.” Well if by thing he means a physical object then I would agree with him. The problem is that he already said that things are all that exist. So according to Dan Barker there is no logic.
Why do people put on a lab coat and argue that people are simply evolved animals, and then say that we shouldn't treat people like animals? If all that exists is matter, then that would mean that we are nothing but matter as well. If that’s true then why do we believe that humans are worthy of respect? In a debate with Paul Manata, Dan Barker asserts that human beings are no more important than broccoli. I find it very interesting that the piece of broccoli known as Dan Barker thinks that other certain pieces of broccoli are worthy of love and respect, as if they were something more than just broccoli. Every single day we all treat each other with respect and dignity, and we all know that those who disrespect people ought not to do that. This is true for Theist and Atheist alike. Humans really are worthy of respect. This is inexplicable on the Atheistic Worldview.
The Atheist is able to recognize moral absolutes, laws of logic, and the dignity of human beings, three things that cannot exist given the worldview of the Atheist. So the question is, why is the Atheist contradicting his/her own worldview? The answer is obvious, because as we’ve seen, the proposition "God doesn't exist" entails impossible consequences.
There is however, another worldview that is capable of accounting for the very things that the Atheist cannot account for, namely Christian Theism. On Christian Theism moral absolutes make sense because God is provided as the absolute moral standard. Immaterial, timeless, transcendent entities such as the laws of logic make sense because they can be grounded in an immaterial, timeless, transcendent God. Human dignity makes sense because humans are created in the image of the only being worthy of honor and praise, God.
Atheism is inadequate and incapable of explaining our experience of the world around us. Atheism therefore cannot be true. This is why I conclude that the best proof for the existence of God is the impossibility of the contrary.