“Whether offensive or defensive, there are a number of reasons why atheism is inadequate as a rational world view.”
I’m an atheist because i don’t see a reason to believe in the various gods proposed by various religions. Not because i sought a ‘worldview.’
"First, atheism cannot adequately explain the existence of the world.”
Neither can electricity, but still pretty sure your modem is plugged in, right?
“Like all things, the world in which we live cries out for an explanation.”
No, it really doesn’t. It’s snowing right now, and it’ll snow whether or not i can explain the event, or think i can explain the event, or if i just attribute it all to the Great And Terrible Snow Demons.
"The atheist, however, is unable to provide a consistent one.”
I consistently do not believe in gods. That’s all atheist means.
“If he argues that the world is eternal, then he is going against modern science which states that the universe had a beginning and is gradually running down.”
Yes, this episode of the universe seems to have had a beginning. But it’s not ‘universe out of nothing,’ as some ignorant fools try to frame it.
"If the atheist affirms that the universe had a beginning, then he must account for what caused it.”
Why? I’m a corporate instructor, not a cosmologist.
“Either way, the atheist cannot adequately explain the world.”
Never said that atheism had that as a purpose, though.
But like electricity, or aerodynamics, it seems to match the world i observe.
“Second, the atheistic world view is irrational and cannot provide an adequate basis for intelligible experience.”
This is pretty much the ‘first’ argument all over, just with a smaller focus. Where did we come from (the world) to where did we come from (people). What’s next, atheism can’t explain feelings?
"You see, an atheistic world is ultimately random,”
Not true. There’s enough continuity for us to write scientific laws explaining repeatable effects.
“disorderly,”
Again, the laws say different.
“transitive, and volatile.”
Eh, pretty much. Doesn’t require a god to explain that, though.
"It is therefore incapable of providing the necessary preconditions to account for the laws of science,”
The preconditions of the laws of science is that matter and engery interact in predictable ways. We observe that and write laws. For as far as we can determine.
“the universal laws of logic,”
A tool for evaluating ideas. We create ideas, we created a way to measure and pressure test them. Big whoop.
“and the human need for absolute moral standards.”
Morality is a human idea to govern behavior, not a trait of the universe.
"In short, it cannot account for the meaningful realities we encounter in life.”
Feel free to actually demonstrate this buuuuuuuullshit assertion. Maybe compare our universe with one known to be godless to show the differences and limitations.
“The Christian theistic world view,”
Views. Multiple. No two Christains will completely agree on which parts of the bible are literal, metaphor, poetic, or transcriber error.
The age of the Earth has about five different estimates. From whatever science is flogging to a mere 6000.
Do not even try to pretend this is an absolute world view.
“however, can explain these transcendental aspects of life."
No, it explains shit. It just uses name-dropper arguments and sayd ’cause god.’
“The uniformity of nature stems from God's orderly design of the universe.”
Nature is not uniform, though.
"The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God Himself thinks,”
But you can lie with logic.
Seriously, you can create absolute bullshit with logic as long as you follow the rules.
Look up, ‘Behold a man!’ while presenting a chicken.
Would god’s thinking be something you could bend to untruths?
" Absolute moral standards, such as "Thou shalt not murder," mirror the perfect moral nature of God.”
We have about fourteen legal phases and phrases to indicate ‘taking a human life.’ They’re not all murder. Negligent manslaughter is NOT murder, for example.
Shooting in self defense isn’t.
Shooting as a soldier in war isn’t.
And some are directed by God.
You’re pretty pompous on this, and way, way incorrect.
But nice try. Thanks for playing.