© 2006, G. Brady Lenardos

The argument I will present is not my argument it has been developed and put forth by many others before me. But, even though it is not mine, you may find a few nuances that I have added. It is the argument for the necessity of God based on the existence of knowledge. In a nutshell, I will show that if knowledge exists, then atheism is inherently contradictory and theism must be true.

If you must know, I fought against this argument for a long time because I didn’t really understand it. Now that I have come to see it clearly and distinctly, I will try to put down in this paper the points and reasons that finally made sense to me, in hopes that they will do the same for you.

Let’s start with what we mean by "knowledge," or at least that part of the meaning of "knowledge" that will be the main focus in this argument. When I use the term “knowledge” in this paper, I mean: “An understanding of words, concepts and ideas that are independent or transcendent from deterministic necessity.”

Consider this; much of our universe is governed by deterministic necessity. The position of our solar system, all the other systems in our galaxy and the positions of all the galaxies in the universe are where they are and could be no other place than where they are because of deterministic necessity. All of these planetary positions were determined to be where they are now because of the conditions found at the early origins from the universe. Then and there all the particles were set in motion. One particle could not avoid hitting another; it’s not like one particle could decide to make a right turn to avoid another. They all acted like they must according to the laws of physics. Because of this, we can predict with extreme accuracy the position of stars and planets from one day to another, and from one year to another, and from one century to another. Matter in motion acts in a deterministic way. We don’t have to factor in to our equations that Jupiter may decide to take a breather and slow down or stop its orbit around the Sun.

If matter in motion didn’t act in a deterministic way, what would it mean? If hot water and fresh coffee grounds didn’t always make a cup of coffee, but sometimes, for no reason, made sulfuric acid, would we ever drink what is in the cup? No! It is the deterministic nature of matter in motion that allows us to live as we live in virtually every aspect of our lives.

The question is do we act in the same way? Does the matter in motion that makes up you and me act deterministically? Or can we act independently or transcendently. Are what we call thoughts and ideas necessarily determined by the atoms bouncing around in our heads the way atoms bounce around in solar systems? If our minds consist of nothing more than the same matter that makes up the rest of the universe, one may be tempted to answer, yes. But, then the question would be, isn’t that answer also necessarily determined? And on and on it goes! If what we call “thoughts” are necessarily determined, then words and ideas really have no meaning, we could not have thought or acted any differently than we did anymore than Jupiter could take a break.

With determinism all “knowledge” terms are functional synonyms. For instance, one person comes to a “true conclusion” and another to a “false conclusion,” both are the necessary effects of antecedent causes belonging to matter in motion. Neither person can come to any other conclusion; they were determined to come to that conclusion and only that conclusion by the antecedent causes. To call a person’s argument “stupid” or “brilliant” in a deterministic worldview is nonsense on one level and a functional synonym on another level. It is nonsense because the argument in question is just the product of antecedent causes and can be no other than it is. There is no independent mind that can take credit or be given credit for the argument; there are just antecedent causes that produce the necessary effect. On the other level, the judgment that an argument is “stupid” or “brilliant” is itself the product of antecedent causes, and the person making the judgment can say nothing else. In this way the judgments of “stupid” and “brilliant” are functional synonyms. These judgments say nothing about the actual argument, but are merely effects necessarily determined by antecedent causes.

This is why it is the case that if the deterministic position is true, there is no knowledge. Like “stupid” and “brilliant,” “knowledge” and “ignorance” are also functional synonyms. Both terms can mean nothing more than “effects of antecedent causes.” The so-called “ignorant man” is thus because of antecedent causes. In fact, he could be nothing else. The “knowledgeable man” is thus because of antecedent causes. In fact, he could be nothing else. It would also be true that the person judging them as knowledgeable or ignorant could come to no other judgment. His judgment is not an independent conclusion, but the determined effect of antecedent causes that were put in motion many years ago; which of course makes the judgment also meaningless.

For “knowledgeable” and “ignorant” to be antonyms, a level of independence must be present. For terms like “Sound argument” or “invalid argument” to have different meanings, a level of independence must be present within the judge. For the conclusions of opposing arguments to have any real and distinct value, the arguers and the judges must have the ability to make decisions independent of mere matter in motion. So, any philosophical position that denies this level of independence, necessarily denies the existence of real knowledge. In a system, like determinism, where knowledge and ignorance are functionally the same thing, the term “knowledge” is meaningless.

This would get rid of the problem of evil and crime. In this deterministic system all actions are also the necessary effects of antecedent causes. How then could we hold someone accountable for something he necessarily had to do? He could do nothing other than he did. It was determined at the big bang. If the terms “knowledgeable” and “ignorant” are functional synonyms in this system, so are terms like “good” and “evil.” They all mean the same thing: “necessary effects of antecedent causes.”

However, we act and talk as if we have the ability to act and think independent of the matter we are made of. The fact that I wrote this paper and you are reading it insinuates that we believe the words, sentences and ideas have real meaning and that you can make an independent decision regarding the material described. If no independent decision can be made, then this is all real silly and pointless.

Let’s take a break from these ponderings and look at the rest of our topic.

What I would like to do is to first examine the philosophical position of Atheism and its ability to account for knowledge.

Philosophy has identified nine cosmologies or theories of reality. Two of these theories of reality are Atheistic. They deny that God or gods exists. The other seven hold that reality consists of some sort of God or gods. So, let’s take a look at the Atheistic cosmologies.

The first is called “Negationism.” It is found in a few eastern philosophies and religions. It states that reality consists of no God and no universe. Everything is just illusion. This may seem a little strange to the western mind. It seems a little strange to me. But, we are more concerned with how it relates to knowledge, than how we feel about it. So let’s look at its relation to knowledge and let our other concerns go, for the time being.

It should be clear that if the universe doesn’t exist, then thinking creatures that are part of the universe don’t exist and there could be no knowledge. So, if Negationism is true, we can fairly say that there can be no knowledge. The reason is that Negationism does not have the elements needed to get us to knowledge. Let me illustrate this as it will come into play again later on. It is like making a glass of ice tea at home. We may have the ice and some water, some lemon and sugar; but, after looking through the entire house we find there is no tea. At this point we do not have all the necessary elements to make ice tea. We have some of the needed items, but we can never get to our goal, unless we go outside our house and bring in the needed element from somewhere else. So it is with Negationism. Negationism doesn’t have the elements needed to get to knowledge, it also has the added problem that there is no place it can go to get the needed elements. Given these facts, we can fairly and necessarily conclude that knowledge can’t occur within the framework of Negationism.

We can also take the next logical step and conclude that if knowledge does exist, then Negationism is false.

The second Atheistic cosmology is “Naturism.” This is not to be confused with the “naturism” that requires you to take off all your clothes and run around the woods. In cosmological Naturism, reality consists of only nature, i.e. our universe. By universe we mean our dimensions of time and space, energy and matter and all that is inherent to them. In Naturism, this universe, which is basically matter in motion, is all that exists. Basically, everything is made up of some kind of matter in motion. There are simple compositions of matter and complex compositions of matter; there is light matter, dark matter, normal matter and exotic matter, but there exists nothing but matter. This is the cosmology of western Atheism; it is a cosmology that most of us are familiar with. When we read the Atheistic philosophy of Bertrand Russell or Anthony Flew, this is at the basis of their writings.

The next question we must ask is what elements in this cosmology get us to knowledge? What elements of this cosmology allow us to be independent of or to rise above the deterministic nature of mere matter in motion, so that we can have free thought and are able to make free decisions; not simply act as we must like some predetermined programmed mechanism? Well, if matter in motion is all there is, then matter in motion is all there is! In other words, there are no elements that allow us to draw independent conclusions, or to give real meaning to words and sentences. If this form of atheistic cosmology it true, then the matter in motion that makes up you and me must also act in a necessarily determined way, as all other matter in motion must. What we call thoughts, are nothing more than the result of atoms and molecules bouncing around in our heads as they must according to the laws of physics. If this is true, then it would be impossible for me not to be a Christian; that is the way the atoms are bouncing and no one can do anything about it. It would be impossible for an Atheist not to be an Atheist; that is the way the atoms are bouncing in his head. This means there is no such thing as real “thoughts,” there is merely the necessary bouncing of atoms, deterministically producing what bouncing atoms produce.

Consider this; a rock on a hillside breaks loose because of wind, rain and gravity. It begins tumbling down the hill. What factors determine its course? There are many: the size and shape of the rock, the hill, any plants, and any other rocks in its way, any rain or wind striking the rock as it moves. All of these conditions and others go into determining the rock's path down the side of the hill. You are made of the same matter in motion, as is the rest of the universe. If Naturism is true, whether you accept the conclusion of this paper or reject it is not based on an independent decision, but determined by how the atoms in your head are redirected by other atoms bumping into them as you supposedly read this. Your decision is necessarily determined, as is the path of the rock tumbling down the hill. We are simply more complex bits of matter.

Given Naturism, “thought” can never be independent of the matter in motion; because that is all that exists. But, we have already said that our definition of knowledge has an element of independent thought to it. When an atheist calls himself a “free thinker,” what does he mean, if not an independent thinker? He is someone who will not allow himself to be intimidated into drawing certain conclusion, but will derive his conclusions by his own means. As you can see, this is in direct contradiction with Naturism; where there is no independence and all conclusions are determined by the initial conditions of the Big Bang and the necessary following implications of those conditions.

If we get right down to it, it comes to this: If Naturism is true; there is no independent thought and knowledge. However, if knowledge does exist, then we know with certainty that Naturism is false.

You see, we have come to the same conclusion with Naturism as we did with Negationism. Naturism also lacks the elements to get us to any real knowledge. So we can say that if any Atheistic cosmology is true, then there is no knowledge. But if knowledge exists, then all atheistic cosmologies are false.

At this point one could question the existence of knowledge. There are problems with this position too. You see, any assertions about knowledge are statements of knowledge! For instance, when someone says that knowledge exists, he is saying that he knows that knowledge exists. When a person denies that knowledge exists, he is saying that he knows that knowledge does not exist. He is saying he knows something, while affirming that no one can know anything! It gets even worse. A person can assert that one cannot know if knowledge exists, but this is also a statement that asserts that the person knows that we cannot know if knowledge exists. These last two assertions about knowledge are what we call self-stultifying. This is because if the statement is true, then the statement is false. If you are confused, read this paragraph a few times and it will make sense. The upshot of all this is that every affirmation of atheism contains an internal contradiction. All who affirm atheism must maintain this contradiction. This makes atheism inherently illogical and therefore, irrational.

So, the only logically consistent statement is that knowledge (and its element of independence) does exist. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we know everything or that we can ever know everything. It just means that we can derive correct independent conclusions. Since, this is true we can further conclude, given our previous conclusions, that any atheistic cosmology is false. This is because we determined that if any Atheistic cosmology is true, then there is no knowledge. But if knowledge exists, then all atheistic cosmologies are false.

We can also take another step. Atheism is the antithesis of Theism. In other words, one position says some sort of God does exist and the other position says that no God or gods exist. Both positions cannot be true, but one is necessarily true. This is called in logic an excluded middle. It works like this, A or not-A is true, but not both. Here is an easy illustration, take a pen and put it in your hand. It is necessarily true that pen either exists or perhaps it is an illusion and does not exist. But one or the other MUST be true; there is no other possible conclusion. It is the same with Atheism and Theism. It is either the case that some sort of God exists or no God exists, there is no middle ground. So, since we have demonstrated that Atheism is false, this means that some sort of Theism is true, necessarily.

Up until now, we have been using the term “Theism” in a general sense to mean the existence of some sort of God. But it is true that out of the remaining 7 theistic cosmologies, most suffer the same fate as the Atheistic cosmologies, i.e. most lack the needed elements to get to knowledge. However, one of them does have the needed elements. That one is a subset of general Theism, and it is also called theism. It is cosmological theism. This is the cosmology that is the basis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Cosmological theism states that God created a world intended to be known and special creatures with the ability to know it. This may also be referred to as the Mosaic cosmology (the cosmology from Moses). This cosmology has everything needed to get us to knowledge. Do any other Theistic cosmologies have the needed elements to get to knowledge? That is the subject of another debate. For our purposes, we must show that there is no Atheistic cosmology that fills the bill and that there is at least one Theistic cosmology that does. This we have done.

It has been said by some that any argument is an argument for the existence of God. Given the implications of Negationism and Naturism, I don’t know how we can come to any other conclusion. For any counter argument to have meaning we must first get rid of the inherent contradiction found in atheism and then find a way for the words themselves to have distinct meanings. As it stands, the arguer, by giving a counter argument, implies that he has examined and knows the argument, the facts and is able to come to an independent conclusion; a conclusion that is not forced by any material factors. The atheistic cosmologies will not allow for that; they do not have the elements that allow for that. So, when it comes right down to it, the assertion of atheism is contradictory and therefore meaningless.