In the Bible it is written, “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'” (Ps 53:1) The Psalmist associates atheism (i.e. strong atheism: the explicit rejection of the existence of deity) with foolishness and evil, asserting that atheism is inherently irrational and corrupt. Validating this claim is straightforward.
An Irrational Claim
To establish that atheism is irrational (illogical, unreasonable) we first need to clearly understand the claim itself, and distinguish it from a similar state: agnosticism, which is not knowing if there is a God or not.
Atheists are not merely stating, as agnostics do, that they have not yet accepted the claim of theism (belief in the existence of deity, especially one supreme God, Creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to His creatures) since they have not yet found sufficient evidence of this. The atheist is claiming something different.
Similarly, atheists are not merely saying that they do not accept the supposed nature of deity as claimed by any religion. I myself believe God is different than all major world religions teach, yet I am not an atheist.
Atheism is an assertion, a firm belief, a formal claim that God does not exist: the atheist is asserting the non-existence of any deity as if it is a verifiable fact, as a known certainty.
Burden of Proof
In civil culture, the necessity of proof inherently lies with anyone who makes a claim, so any atheist is understood to carry a burden of proof to support the atheistic claim. When the atheist claims no deity exists we expect the atheist to provide demonstrable evidence which proves and establishes the non-existence of any deity. When one makes such a claim without any evidence, we consider this to be irrational, illogical, and unreasonable.
It is insufficient to merely do as the atheist commonly does, and shift the burden of proof to the theist saying, “Well, can you prove that deity exists? If not, this proves my atheism.” But this is irrational: being unable to prove that a claim is true does not prove that it is false. Being unable to prove theism may result in agnosticism, a “not knowing,” but it provides no formal support for atheism.
We cannot verify the assertion of atheism, that deity does not exist, unless we are able to either  search out and explore all possibilities related to the existence of deity, or  show that the existence of deity is precluded by known phenomena. For example, if we have been told that there exists a fire-breathing dragon god that is easily observed every morning in the entrance to a particular cave, then we may go to that cave and observe the entrance for an entire morning. When we do not observe the dragon god, we may conclude, or prove, that such a dragon does not exist because we have obtained evidence that would be impossible to acquire if the dragon god we have heard about does exist. We cannot prove from the data we have collected that no fire-breathing dragon gods exist … all we know for certain is that the story we have heard about this particular dragon god is untrue. We are able to establish this because there was enough substance in the claim itself to enable us to collect the necessary data and verify that the claim is either true or false.
In making the claim that deity does not exist, atheists imply that they have convincing evidence of the non-existence of any deity. So … has anyone searched out all possible locations where any deity might be located, or all conditions under which any kind of deity might be detected? Any Creator may choose to remain outside the known universe, being entirely undetectable and unknowable within the natural realm, making it impossible for us to do an exhaustive search.
Then has anyone observed some natural phenomenon that precludes the existence of any and all deity? Only if we can know for certain that no deity of any kind would ever allow such a phenomenon to occur. But this implies knowing something about the nature of deity which only deity can reveal. Since the simple claim that deity exists specifies nothing of any particular deity’s nature, it is impossible for the atheist to collect evidence which contradicts this claim.
Perhaps the most common “evidence” we are offered in support of atheism, mostly directed at the Judeo-Christian concept of God, is the awareness of so much “evil” in our world, especially in organized religion and/or theists. The claim is that since a good God would not allow such evil then either God must not be good or He does not exist. As convincing as this argument is to some, it is like claiming governments and laws do not exist because there are criminals and corrupt police. The fact that there are criminals implies there are laws criminals break, and governments which establish these laws … just like the fact of evil would prove there is a God. Failure to see God’s purpose in allowing evil is beside the point; it certainly provides no evidence contradicting God’s existence.
And where do we get this notion of evil or justice in the first place — and we all do have this notion operating continually within us — if there is only matter and energy? Identifying any human behavior as truly good or evil, and not just desirable or undesirable, is in itself a leap of faith into a metaphysical world; this is an acknowledgement of supreme Intelligence above and beyond Nature. Either God is real or there is no good or evil, only the delusion of morality created by chemicals in our brains. Claiming that the existence of evil disproves the existence of God is thus irrational.
We have here, before us, the sum and substance of any and all argument for atheism: the claim that no deity exists. The assertion turns out to be groundless, hence irrational. Since one cannot do an exhaustive search to show that no deity exists, and since the simple claim of theism does not admit enough detail to enable us to find any condition or state which precludes the existence of any particular deity, it is impossible to verify the non-existence of deity. Any complaint that a just God’s existence is inconsistent with evil implies, in itself, a God to define evil. These facts imply that any explicit denial of the existence of God is inherently irrational; it cannot be based upon reason. Atheism is therefore, at best, merely bold presumption.
A Foolish Bet
In light of the fact that one cannot disprove the existence of deity, and therefore make a reasonable atheistic claim, it is also easily shown that it is unwise to live as though a just and holy God might not exist. Perhaps the most well-known proof of this is Pascal’s Wager. The argument is sound, having no rational rebuttal.
The idea, very simply, is that if we desire the best expected outcome in life then it is wise to live as if a just and holy God exists, one that rewards good and punishes evil, even if such a God does not exist. For, unless it can be known for certain that such a God does not exist, one must assign some non-zero chance of being true to the idea that seeking to know, please and honor such a God has an infinite reward, and that being in rebellion against and alienated from this God has an infinite loss or penalty. If we also agree that any earthly gain or loss is finite, then we maximize the goodness of our expected outcome in life by choosing to live as if there is a just and holy God and seeking to win God’s favor. An infinite gain or loss, even in light of the smallest chance of eternal bliss or suffering, is still an infinite potential which dwarfs any earthly experience, regardless how improbable this eternal prospect seems. Therefore, as long as we are unsure about the existence of God, it is prudent to live so as to please such a God as best we can, just in case God does happen to exist.
There is only one way to avoid this conclusion: one must know for certain that a just God does not exist. This is, again, the irrational presumption of atheism. Therefore, while Pascal’s Wager does not prove that a just God exists – it does prove that it is unwise to act as if God might not exist.
But the committed atheist is unwilling to accept this and so quips with an absurdity: “Well then, I claim there’s a fire-breathing dragon god that is going to chomp on you eternally if you don’t renounce your theism. Since you cannot prove me wrong, there is a positive probability that I am right, so you must follow Pascal’s wager and optimize your outcome!”
Yes, we can dream up absurdities and leverage Pascal’s wager to contradict Pascal, but in doing so we miss the whole point: Pascal did not dream up an absurdity; he observed the general state of humanity and drew an inference from it. The vast majority of all people who have ever lived have believed in a deity of some kind that rewards good and punishes evil; but there is no significant belief — especially among atheists — in fire-breathing dragon gods that eternally devour theists.
One can play mental games all day long, but one cannot escape our common reality: the notion of divine justice, a response from deity for practicing evil in this life, is extremely common in humanity. When the vast majority of people give a common witness in any other realm we generally give them the benefit of the doubt. While public opinion in itself does not constitute formal proof, it should definitely cause us deep concern in going against it, and we should only do so confidently when we have verifiable facts to support us. In this case, we do not. It is irrational and foolish then to ignore the fact of public opinion in the context of Pascal’s wager simply because one does not enjoy the outcome.
The Psalmist’s claim is hereby fully vindicated: atheism is both boldly presumptuous and inherently foolish in both theory and practice. In order to assert with finality that there is no God, or even to live life as if this might be true, we really must, so to speak, check our brain at the door.
A Dangerous Claim
In addition to the fact that atheism is both irrational and foolish, the claim of atheism is an entirely useless one: it provides no discernible benefit to anyone. In fact, if we think about it carefully, this is a uniquely destructive and incredibly dangerous claim.
The atheist confidently asserts that ever since Man started inventing religions we’ve been arguing and fighting over who’s is best and using these fairy tales and myths to both stifle scientific inquiry and manipulate and harm each other. To end our quarreling and endless superstition the atheist proposes that we move beyond these childish tales and live in a new age of reason and science, free of all religious bias. But is this a useful solution to all of our fighting and manipulation, or is the atheist just throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water?
Even if there is no god, even if theism is merely a product of evolution to help us humans survive and cooperate, belief in divine justice actually does help us survive and cooperate. It encourages behaviors which benefit the whole of humanity, often at the expense of perceived personal benefit. In doing so, it forms the only known basis for a thriving civil culture, the only useful foundation we have ever known for stable, mutual cooperation for our common welfare. Every advanced civilization, up until modern times, has been grounded in religious moral code, founded upon a sense of justice imposed by deity on those who commit what we call evil and reward what we call good. What do we gain in claiming this foundation is merely Man’s invention?
Though it is certainly true that one can arbitrarily form an atheistic foundation for society that is conveniently consistent with principles common to world religion, such as loving your neighbor as yourself, what forms the basis for this foundation in atheism? What makes this kind of foundation better than any other? No particular foundation is obviously implied by natural selection. How then does atheism appeal to those who desire to live selfish, irresponsible and destructive lives?
While atheism promises to resolve our theological fussing and fighting by dismissing it all as superstitious nonsense, offering us philosophical naturalism in its place, atheism removes the only tried and trusted foundation known to Man that moves us to check personal interests as a matter of principle. Telling the truth when it would incriminate us, seeking out the owner of a lost valuable, protecting the weak and under-privileged, seeking the general welfare of others — why would the atheist promote these types of behaviors and not what we commonly call evil? Why is helping a handicapped child better than torturing and killing it? Why is diligently producing goods and services better than stealing them? Why promote women’s rights or social justice over sex trafficking, genocide and slavery? Why?
Western atheists steeped in post Judeo-Christian cultures may respond that it seems best if we all follow some form of the golden rule, but when we persist in asking what better means, or what right any group of people has to impose their personal views on anyone else, regardless of the group’s size or power, we quickly find out that any proposed moral foundation … as far as atheism is concerned … is entirely arbitrary.
When the United States first began identifying and establishing itself among world powers, to what did its leaders appeal as a moral justification for human rights? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights … ” They appealed to a just and holy Supreme Being, Who designed Man with dignity and purpose, Whose existence and basic character they supposed to be so obvious to rational souls that it may be implicitly and confidently presumed. To what else can we possibly appeal as a basis for morality?
Which atheistic regime based its core values on some form of the golden rule? Stalin or Lenin? Chairman Mao? or Hitler? When political leaders come to power denying the existence of deity, to what do they generally appeal for moral authority? What do they leverage to motivate people to be honest and ethical, to cooperate and live together in harmony? Savage brutality for non-conformists?
Atheism plainly asserts that every impulse and desire we’ve ever known has been programmed into us by natural selection; the very notion that one impulse is better than another is itself just another chemical reaction. Human life has no intrinsic value, in fact nothing actually matters in atheism; we’re all just organic machines doing what we’ve been programmed to do.
As it turns out, we cannot even hope to have intelligent discussions about real morality, the concept of anything being truly good or evil, with an atheist … by definition … ever.
The real answer from atheism here, when we clear away all the smoke and mirrors, is a deafening silence … no rules, no guidelines, no boundaries. Absolutely anything goes.
Scientific Evidence that God Exists
Theism definitely has its own set of problems, but the alternative is evidently unthinkably destructive to humanity. There is real practical benefit in seeking to establish theism on solid footing (even if it’s not true). So is there any kind of formal proof for the existence of God?
While many struggle to find an approach that is acceptable, it is generally claimed that this cannot be done, and that one must accept theism on blind faith. However, if God does exist and chooses to be knowable or observable in some way, then we may both seek and find evidence of His existence and conclude with relative certainty (prove) that God is as He reveals Himself to be.
The Nature of Proof
Proof in this context is evidence that is convincing to an unbiased, reasonable person. For when a person is unwilling to be convinced about something then evidence and facts become irrelevant.
Positively determining that an idea or concept (the hypothesis) should be accepted as true is an activity that allows us to use the scientific method, a research protocol in which a problem is identified (Does God exist?), a hypothesis is formulated (Yes), relevant data are gathered (evidence), and the hypothesis is empirically tested. (Does the evidence support this hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt?) If the evidence consistently and strongly supports the hypothesis then we confidently accept the hypothesis as true, otherwise we do not accept it as true and we accept the Null hypothesis (a “not knowing”) instead. In no case does a lack of evidence imply that a different, alternative hypothesis (No) is true; this is the atheist’s fundamental error.
While the provision of empirical evidence may not constitute formal logical proof (as in mathematics), it is sufficient to establish proof in scientific, legal and cultural settings. One accepts an hypothesis as true when the evidence consistently supports it and when one has no contradictory evidence or alternate hypotheses that are also consistent with the evidence. Until contradictory evidence is discovered, or plausible alternate hypotheses become available, this evidence is considered “proof” of the hypothesis by reasonable, unbiased people.
Proving the existence of God like this is, in fact, a scientific inquiry. Science is simply the study of reality through experiments: the observation and analysis of predictable, repeatable behaviors. While we cannot prove that God does not exist, it is possible to scientifically determine that God does exist by finding verifiable evidence of His existence.
Compelling empirical evidence of the existence of God is noted by C.S. Lewis in his classic work, Mere Christianity, where he asserts, “Atheism turns out to be too simple;” it does not account for the universal human perception of moral law.
We begin with the self-evident assertion that every healthy, mature person is aware of something we call Moral Law, a standard above and beyond the natural realm which defines good and evil, and we all live as if this moral law is real. This is self-evident since every cognizant soul experiences it for themselves and may easily observe it in others.
Morality’s Metaphysical Nature
When we say that something is good or evil we are not applying the term merely to a physical event, we are always referring to a non-physical, or non-natural, or shall we say super-natural aspect of the event. Good and evil and related terms are only used in moral contexts to describe human behavior, not animal behaviors or natural disasters, and they always relate exclusively to the reason or motive for behavior.
For example, suppose we observe one man killing another man. Is this event good? Or is it evil? Well, this depends on why the attacker does as he does, not on the act itself. If the motive for the attack is malicious (evil intent), as when the victim does not deserve to be killed, then the action is considered evil. But if the action is just, and the victim does deserve the action, because he has been properly convicted of serious crime and the attacker is acting as a lawful executioner, then the exact same action is considered good. Any specific behavior could be either good or evil, depending on the motive of the person performing the act.
Determining the moral quality of an event is always like this; it has nothing at all to do with the actual physics of the event, what mechanically occurs in the natural realm; morality only refers to an aspect of the event which does not exist in the natural realm and cannot be perceived with the natural senses. The terms good and evil describe metaphysical or super-natural qualities which are impossible to discern or describe in a purely physical context. Those who are incapable of discerning this metaphysical aspect of events will be completely unaware of this dimension of reality; there is no other way to comprehend it.
Universal and Consistent
But every healthy human being instinctively recognizes injustice and evil, especially against themselves, and invariably reacts angrily to it. And we consistently respond to accusations that we have transgressed Moral Law as if these charges are meaningful, even if there are no physical consequences involved. In no case do we fail to acknowledge metaphysical reality in our response.
When we are accused we may respond by defending ourselves and claiming we are innocent, or by admitting guilt, or by resenting or disdaining our accuser, or in defiance — purposing to transgress even more. When we are commended for something good we feel encouraged and validated. We are all living and breathing simultaneously in two completely distinct and unrelated worlds, in both a physical world and metaphysical one … and we cannot avoid it.
We cannot live as if there is no morality, as if there is only the natural world of energy and matter, elements which can have no inherent moral quality. Every rational soul lives life every single day as if there is something more than the natural world, as if events have a significance apart from Nature, as if they are important … to deity.
Obligation vs Preference
As Lewis points out, morality is unrelated to the idea that we are naturally designed to desire and seek certain things (which give us pleasure) and to dislike and avoid certain other things (which cause us pain). These kinds of preferences may be accounted for apart from God. But we cannot derive a sense of morality, an ought or obligation, from mere preference: I want or I do not want is entirely different than I should/ought or I should/ought not. The concepts are explicitly unrelated, and oftentimes opposed to each other.
A moral standard implies a duty independent of culture, personal opinion or preference that is binding on a person even if it is to their own hurt: these impulses are, for the most part, contrary to our natural urges. Moral duty is a check or limitation on self-interest, a fundamentally unique urge to resist and override our normal instincts to protect and provide for ourselves and loved ones as we seek a higher good, often in the welfare of strangers; it is a directive, an imperative, calling us to risk our own well-being in specific ways and in specific contexts. It is in many ways explicitly contrary to what we would expect in the context of Darwinian Evolution as driven by natural selection.
A Check on Competitive Drive
Moral Law condemns evil motives which tend to harm others while promoting the perpetrator’s self-interests, and approves good motives which tend to benefit others … yet also to make good people vulnerable in the context of immoral communities; and the more risk one voluntarily incurs in choosing good the greater degree of goodness is attributed to the choice. Moral Law thus only tends toward the advancement of a community when its members largely adhere to it; in less stable settings moral choices tend to make moral people more vulnerable than immoral people.
This type of vulnerable cooperation, especially among mature males, is unique; it opposes and limits the fierce, oftentimes deadly competition enabling natural selection in other species. This unique phenomenon tends both to promote the welfare of other males independently of their strength, health, or general ability to procreate, and also to diminish the welfare of each moral male if he practices this morality as a minority. If introduced gradually via natural selection, those inheriting this moral trait are at a significant competitive disadvantage and will tend to perish rather than flourish. In order for this trait to evolve naturally, the adaptation must be acquired by a very large proportion of the local population in a single generation, a phenomenon beyond the scope of Darwinian evolution.
An Appeal to Justice
And when a moral person suffers innocently, it so happens that an intrinsic component of Moral Law is an instinctive desire for justice; this is in effect a call to an higher power to respond to good and evil and ultimately make things right. Moral Law says in effect, “Seek the welfare of the whole, even at your own peril, and trust a metaphysical force to take care of you.” This gives the moral person encouragement to continue being moral in the context of vulnerability, and to endure injustice in hope: an expectation of ultimate vindication and reward for moral choices.
An Enabling Foundation
It is precisely this unique, paradoxical, naturally inexplicable behavior, especially as it is occurring among mature males, that enables us to cooperate in flexible and powerful ways to promote the welfare of humanity as a whole. It encourages people, especially males, to trust in an intelligent metaphysical power — deity, if you will — to take care of themselves and their loved ones as they make themselves vulnerable to others for the purposes of doing good, of aligning themselves with and pleasing this deity.
Each moral male (and female) must be instinctively aware of this intelligent power (unless the deity unmistakable reveals itself to them through Nature), and they must also somehow become aware of the specific type of standard, the definition of good and evil, which will tend to benefit the whole community in its current natural environment.
And moral behavior only works to our benefit if most of the others in our local community adopt the same pattern of behavior. Otherwise we suffer (along with those who depend on us), and we either appeal to deity for help or we abandon morality. In voluntarily choosing good when we could easily choose evil and advance our own interests, we place ourselves at risk in order to please our perception of deity.
This metaphysical pursuit does not work with just any random pattern of voluntary vulnerability, but only with very specific kinds of vulnerability. Achieving the welfare of the whole of a society requires most of its members becoming aware of and voluntarily adopting a carefully formulated set of rules, or values, a standard of behavior that actually will tend to benefit the whole when followed by the majority of its members. Not just any random pattern of voluntary vulnerability tends to have this effect. If a detrimental standard is adopted by the community, one that is unsuited for its particular needs, the community as a whole will ultimately suffer rather than flourish.
Our perception of this metaphysical moral standard is imposed by each of us internally and instinctively upon others regardless whether anyone else happens to agree with us. We automatically make moral judgments and respond to human actions as good or evil. When others massacre innocent children, or subjugate the innocent against their will, we understand that it makes no difference whether others think this is evil or not: we are instinctively claiming knowledge of a universal metaphysical standard that is not a matter of personal opinion, preference, interest or desire.
Evidence of Metaphysical Reality
This sense of morality and passion for justice cannot be a phenomenon driven by an evolutionary development ensuring the survival of a species because it  explicitly violates the forces of natural selection and  it transcends the physical properties of the universe. It is entirely unrelated to matter and energy and it is generally diametrically opposed to natural instinct. This phenomenon, by its very nature, cannot be explained by, understood within, derived from or accounted for merely within the natural realm and the struggle to survive within it since it is completely independent of, unrelated to, and contradictory to the pattern of Nature itself. It is therefore inexplicable apart from metaphysical reality. The awareness of Moral Law is essentially a sheer jump from the natural world into another world; it is not an awareness that can effectively evolve in stages or by degrees.
In other words, Morality was not created by Man because  it transcends Man and is understood by Man to evaluate his own behavior and that of others in a sense that is unrelated to the physical nature of any particular action and  moral duty unnaturally limits and checks personal interests for the benefit of others, and generally does so irrespective of anyone’s natural capability to promote the survival of the human species. This consistent and easily observed phenomenon is therefore evidence of metaphysical reality: by entirely eliminating any type of natural explanation, we are left with only a metaphysical one.
Our universal sense of moral law, of moral obligation, of justice and injustice, implies a supernatural being, God, the grand “Says Who?” It inherently presumes an omniscient Observer Who is aware of our motives and either approves or disapproves of our actions based on a transcendent metaphysical standard. This phenomenon has no known plausible explanation other than that there actually is a God who has defined a moral standard, revealed it to Man, and is constantly evaluating human behavior based on this standard.
And in building into each one of us an unshakable call for justice, an awareness that there should be a reward for goodness and a punishment for wickedness, and also an irresistible urge to impose our own sense of morality on others, God is revealing Himself through us, that He Himself holds us all accountable for our actions — for why we do what we do. He has built this aspect of His own nature into our very own psychological DNA: we are all made in His image (Ge 1:27), and we can do nothing to change this.
And while there are certainly differences in moral standards between humans at some level, the phenomenon is universally consistent in that all humans impose their moral views on others as if they comprise a universal, divine standard. Our differences merely reveal that we are all, in some measure, broken and confused about God’s definition of good and evil, and that we all need to be healed and instructed in His ways. But even in these differences we all consistently act as if God actually has provided such a definition.
Morality is thus an experience and perception of the reality of an entirely different world, of an entirely different nature, and every human being is both aware of it, and involuntarily and continuously participates in it.
An Amoral Human?
Try to imagine a fully functioning humanoid which places no moral value whatsoever on any event, even when personally affected by the event. It feels emotions like fear, as when in the path of a forest fire or running from a tiger, or happiness, as when it is parched and finds a source of clean water or some savory food, but no sense of morality. As an animal, it feels safe or afraid, sad or happy, content or restless, satiated or hungry. While it knows companionship and familial affection with members of its own clan, it knows no ultimate love or hatred, no resentment or appreciation, no shame or honor, no kindness or cruelty, no defiance or rebellion or guilt. There is no concept of revenge, of impropriety, of integrity or decency, the very notion of “good” or “evil” or “unjust” or “fair” is completely foreign to it. It has no sense of purpose, destiny or fate, or of social values or ethics. It has no ego, no sense of self-importance or significance. In fact, this creature is incapable of seeing any meaning in anything at all. In its narrow little worldview, everything just is.
Imagine further, the creature we consider is incapable of having such perception and awareness. When you try to explain to it why you are angry that it has stolen someone else’s food, or why it should assist those from another clan who are destitute, or tell the truth, it simply returns a blank, disconnected stare. It is like trying to explain color or sight to the blind, or hearing to the deaf. It is not that its sense of these things is limited or underdeveloped, it simply does not have the capacity or ability to perceive these things or to sense them at all; it cannot understand what you are describing.
Any action that does not directly impact this creature’s own comfort and safety, or that of its immediate family and clan, is irrelevant to it, for the mere struggle to survive can only motivate the creature within this sphere. Forest fires are undesirable and inconvenient, being parched and hungry is very unpleasant, and being eaten alive is very painful. This is all it knows. But forest fires are not unjust, no action is inherently “good” or “evil.” No living thing has a “right” to eat or to drink … or to live: whether the humanoid is killing a zebra, or a mosquito, or a fellow humanoid in a contest to gain access to females and reproduce, this is all just as natural to the humanoid as breathing. All the animal knows is pain and pleasure, convenience an inconvenience. Happiness and sorrow only spring from the instinct to survive and procreate in the context of limited natural resources. Can you imagine someone, anyone, being like this? Would you call this creature human?
Better yet, can you imagine how everyone, every single human being, came to be so very different from this?
Fully functioning human beings are universally designed and equipped with an inherent perception that Moral Law exists, that events matter, and that there is meaning and purpose in human life. Even if we are not taught these things as children and they lie hidden beneath the surface, when we hear moral concepts we instinctively understand and appreciate them. It is not as if the concepts are entirely foreign to us, but more like a language we once knew and are now resurrecting.
These perceptions relate to non-material aspects of our environment, so they cannot spring from or be described or understood with the natural senses. As such, this metaphysical reality cannot be discovered naturally – it must be revealed, and human beings must be designed and created with the ability to perceive it. The moral perception must spring from and be energized by that which is above and beyond the material realm, and the capacity to understand it must be designed into the very fabric of our psychological framework. Such a design cannot be sourced in the drive to survive and procreate because it limits and opposes these desires.
In summary, human awareness of metaphysical reality reveals that we already believe in God, that we know He is just and good, and that we expect Him to hold us all accountable for our actions, for our motives: why we do what we do. We can see that we believe this way because of the way we all consistently act. A just and holy God has already and unmistakably shown so much of Himself to us that we cannot ignore Him and live otherwise. As rational human beings, we are literally unable to live as if only the material world exists. This is evidence, consistently and entirely uncontradicted evidence of supernatural metaphysical reality, scientific proof … of deity.
The phenomenon of Moral Law implies that God exists because  no rational person is capable of living as if there is no metaphysical reality and  no purely natural cause can be proposed for such behavior. In other words, no one can live their life as if only the material world exists, and no one can explain why they are living the way they are if there is only Nature, if a just God does not exist. Given the data currently available to us, any other conclusion than “God exists and He is just” is therefore illogical, irrational and unreasonable, even if this theistic conclusion happens to be incorrect. All of the data we currently have at our disposal implies that it is correct, and no data in our possession explicitly contradicts it.
To argue against this conclusion, given the data we currently have at our disposal, is comparable to disputing the boiling point of water: “Just because we don’t yet have data that shows otherwise, we cannot conclude that water boils at this temperature and atmospheric pressure.” Scientists, reasonable people who are not already irreconcilably predisposed against an idea, do not respond like this. When we have a preponderance of data to examine, and all of the available data consistently and perfectly fit our hypothesis, and we have no other plausible explanation for what we are observing, we accept the related hypothesis as true and we consider the evidence that supports it to be “scientific proof.”
The fact that God exists is hereby established. For those interested in knowing this God personally and walking with Him, formal proof that the God of the Universe is the God of the Bible is provided in Infallible Proof.
In summary then, atheism is an irrational, foolish … yes, even dangerous belief system, and this is evident from the data commonly available to anyone who can reason.
Atheists cannot provide any evidence for their beliefs, nor even act like atheists, as if there is no moral law or metaphysical reality. Atheists deeply value moral laws, and related social values such as being ethical and charitable, just like the rest of us, even though the atheistic claim implies that these are merely delusions driven by hormones and electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Atheists can only give superficial mental assent to atheism; they cannot modify their own behavior to be in accordance with their own assertions.
Just like theists, atheists make moral arguments, yet they do so uniquely and thoughtlessly, without acknowledging any remotely reasonable basis for them. They respond to moral accusations just like theists do, as if these charges have actual substance, even though atheism asserts in theory that they have none. In other words, atheists consistently act like theists, as if there is a metaphysical reality, even while they are denying that it exists. Atheists are acting like they are self-deceived, not like the mere animals they claim to be — they cannot behave as they claim to believe, purely physical beings that are the product of chance and natural selection, and their actions consistently betray and expose this self-deception.
Atheists find themselves in a dilemma since they wish to retain credibility in a civil society which is itself founded upon and upheld by the very thing they are denying (divinely revealed Moral Law). Both atheists and their religious peers are all commonly aware of a transcendent moral standard, while the atheist is openly disdaining the possibility of any deity to create this standard and give it substance. In order to retain credibility atheists must find a way to derive the supposed delusion of metaphysical reality from a purely physical foundation. This, by definition, cannot be done. With no evidence upon which to base their assertions, atheists must either resort to bold, naked presumption, or renounce their atheism … or check their brain at the door and quit thinking about it altogether.
So, as hardened atheists must eventually presume that physical reality sprang from exactly nothing, from emptiness, and created itself, so they must presume that the supposed delusion of metaphysical reality springs from nothing, creating itself. It is the height of circular reasoning … only tolerated by the rest of us because the absurdity is presented so confidently by people who have, in so many other respects, shown themselves to be intelligent, thorough and reasonable with facts.
Yet if one claims in any other context to have in their possession something verifiably real and tangible that came into existence of its own accord from absolutely nothing, that, say, the watch upon their wrist just appeared by itself out of thin air – ex nihilo – they are rightly ignored or mocked into silence. How then do atheists boldly assert the very same — about everything — that life itself once sprang out from non-life … all by itself … even though this has never been observed by anyone at any time, that all matter and energy came from a pure vacuum … all on its own, that the moral senses of which all sane men are aware are merely empty delusion … based on absolutely nothing — yet a delusion which they themselves cannot ignore or escape?
How true it is that God has made foolish the wisdom of this world! (1Co 1:20) In the light of common, readily verifiable fact, let no rational human being cower any longer before the daring presumption of atheism. Once we see this for what it is — illogical, destructive presumption — let us, in love, call it what it is and then pray for the self-deceived with compassionate respect.
Even the atheist is made in the image of God, and the God who created Man can change the stony heart and give sight to the blind. (Ps 51:10) And indeed, only God Himself can do this.