Everyone depends on God. Not in the sense that everyone trusts God, nor in the sense that everyone believes in the existence of God; in the sense that everyone's existence is dependent upon God. An odd statement? Possibly one that questions my ability as a thinker and writer. However, given the known fact that life is present, that events happen, and that matter is existent, isn't this an unavoidable conclusion to arrive at?
If we assume that we are truly rational--which science, thinking, philosophy, and empirical data are all dependent on--than we must have some ground for believing that this is the case. I would rather not consider the option that all thought is completely irrational, nor, I'm going to assume, would my reader. Let's dive deeper into this premise.
By rationality, I mean the human ability to reason towards accurate conclusions on the basis of empirical or philosophical data. This ability is not one that arises from random occurrences; from, namely, the theory's of the sciences. It would be much appreciated if at this point, my reader would join me in thinking through this. At this moment, I sit in a coffee shop with a cappuccino next to me. What empirical data is present in this statement that allows the reader to feel this is an accurate statement? There is none whatsoever. So why are you inclined to believe me? Because you find me trustworthy. "Why would he lie to me about such a mundane detail?" you ask yourself. Well there are several reasons I may twist the truth of this detail: for the sake of an example, for a necessary hook (though this is not the best hook), or simply to get more words on the page. It can now be concluded that there is a possibility I have either lied altogether or twisted the truth to fit my hopes for this blog post.
Premises in science are accepted with a similar lack of questioning. I do not claim that they have not been tested, or that all things in science are inaccurate. I claim that certain theory's in science have been so desired that it has resulted in a determination, if not hostility, towards the questioner to not so much answer the question's of the science-skeptic, but to merely tell the questioner they are senile for considering a paradigm that is incompatible with a scientific theory.
Many hostile atheists believe we are mentally confused, and they are intellectually credible and thought-through. But are they not guilty of clinging to their views with arms squeezing? Yes, Christians also cling to their views, but why is the atheist so hostile? Why is the new-atheism so against us? It is one thing to have a naturalistic basis for your views (the atheist), but it is totally another to have a supernatural. The naturalist is not backed except on the basis of his own rationality; the Supernaturalist is backed by a being who has provided our rationality. If nothing has given you rationality, why trust it? It is a fallacious way of reasoning; one’s quality of reasoning is only as good as it’s source.
