NATURALIST WORLDVIEW TRUTH TEST/REALITY CHECK
*If you aren't familiar with the preliminary axioms for testing truth, please click here before continuing.*
1. LOGICAL CONSISTENCY--
A. First law of Thermodynamics:
P1: If naturalism subscribes to a belief that is contrary to any scientific law, then naturalism fails the Truth test of LOGICAL CONSISTENCY.
P2: The FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS is a scientific law.
P3: Naturalism posits an explanation to the beginning of the universe that violates the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
Conclusion:. Therefore, naturalism subscribes to a belief that is contrary to scientific laws and consequently fails the TRUTH test of LOGICAL CONSISTENCY.
B. Second Law of Thermodynamics:
P1: If naturalism subscribes to a belief that is contrary to any scientific law, then naturalism fails the Truth test of LOGICAL CONSISTENCY.
P2: Naturalism subscribes to the belief that matter must either be eternal or have the capability of creating itself (i.e., spontaneous generation).
P3: The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that matter CANNOT be eternal; the First Law of Thermodynamics and the law of Causality implies that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anything (the universe included) to create itself.
Conclusion: Therefore, naturalism subscribes to beliefs that are contrary to scientific laws and consequently fails the TRUTH test of LOGICAL CONSISTENCY.
***If at this point you are tempted to scream and shout, “What about God! Doesn’t the law of Causality apply to God! YOU ARE INCONSISTENT!” Please read the "Whatever caused the universe to exist is not part of the universe" section here.
C. Laws of Logic:
Naturalism claims everything arises from natural properties and causes; therefore, nothing exists beyond the natural (material) world. The natural world cannot explain what numbers or rules of logic are; it merely takes them for granted as a priori truths essential to its function. Naturalists use the laws of logic (absolutely) to deny the absolute existence of the laws of logic (this violates the law of non-contradiction).
P1: If something can be demonstrated to be true/exist absolutely that is immaterial (that naturalism cannot account for), then naturalism would violate the law of non-contradiction and fail the TRUTH test of LOGICAL CONSISTENCY.
P2: If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. We can prove and disprove things logically; therefore, LOGIC IS ABSOLUTE.
P3: The natural world cannot explain what numbers or rules of logic are (i.e. we do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter/the natural world).
Conclusion: Therefore, naturalism violates the law of non-contradiction, and fails the TRUTH test of LOGICAL CONSISTENCY since it cannot coherently and consistently account for the existence of something immaterial (the laws of logic) that has been demonstrated to exist absolutely (without their absolute existence you could not disprove anything I say here).
2. EMPIRICAL ADEQUACY--
A. Multiple Universes:
Naturalism believes the only things that can be known are through the scientific method (experimentation and observation).
To resolve the logical inconsistencies of the naturalist worldview of the cause of the universe with the first and second laws of thermodynamics, naturalism attempts to posit multiple universes.
There is no scientific evidence to support what is being claimed. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make it true. There are no facts or data to back up those claims.
The only reason this is given serious thought is because those considering are begging the question. They are assuming the conclusion in one of the premises of their thinking: “Naturalism is true; therefore, the most probable explanation for a universe that needs resources outside itself to explain itself without violating our own established scientific laws is A MULTI-VERSE!”
This is nothing more than speculation, conjecture, and assertion—not evidence. As Gregory Benford wrote: “This ‘multiverse’ view represents the failure of our grand agenda and seems to me contrary to the prescribed simplicity of Occam’s Razor, solving our lack of understanding by multiplying unseen entities into infinity” (Benford, 2006, p. 226). Belief in the multiverse model is like proclaiming the existence of fairies just because you can imagine one. But such speculation is hardly scientific evidence—and that is the problem.
Note also that accepting the possibility of alternative creative causes leaves atheists with the same problem with which they started. They claim to use the laws of physics to arrive at the multiverse conclusion (Shukman, 2010). But if the laws of physics apply to their conclusion about multiple universes, why would the laws of physics not apply to those universes? If the laws of science apply to those hypothetical universes (and it would be reasonable to conclude that they would since, according to atheists, the universes interact), then the matter of origins has merely shifted to those other universes. How did they come into being? There are still only three options—they always existed (in violation of the second law of thermodynamics); they created themselves (in violation of the first law of thermodynamics); or they were created. The laws of thermodynamics still echo the truth from the remotest parts of the created order: “You cannot explain it all without God in the equation!”
B. Naturalism cannot demonstrate how consciousness can arise from unconsciousness, order comes from disorder, intelligence comes from chaos, information in DNA can arise through natural processes, or how life can come from non-life. They just want us to accept these ideas, not on the scientific evidence for it, but on FAITH!
C. Naturalists treat science as their god, as if science is the only way to gain knowledge.
But there are at least five different ways to gain knowledge or truth:
1. Through the scientific method of experimentation and observation
2. Through logic and reason
3. Through our experiences
4. Through our conscience
5. Through history
This means that although science is SUFFICIENT to gain knowledge/ truth, it is NOT NECESSARY for knowledge/truth. Necessity excludes other methods or possibilities, sufficiency does not.
Conclusion: Naturalism fails the TRUTH test of EMPIRICAL ADEQUACY
3. EXPERIENTIAL RELEVANCE
A. Right and wrong:
What is inherent in the atheist/naturalist worldview is that we are all just random molecules bouncing around in space with no meaning, value, or purpose. There is no ultimate distinction between good and evil. This doesn’t ring true with the things we seem to know about the world (torturing babies for fun, and rape is OBJECTIVELY EVIL in any state, any time, and any possible place in this universe!).
Many atheists’ antagonism toward God ends up proving that they intuitively find some things reprehensible. But they cannot explain their innate sense of right and wrong (i.e. the reality of God’s law written on their heart), because there is no logical explanation for how that intuition toward morality could develop form sheer matter and chemistry.
B. The existence of the soul:
Our soul is our mind, conscience, personality, imagination, reason, humor, and emotions. In short, our soul is what makes us unique and distinct from others. Notice the attributes of the soul cannot be calculated or measured, they are not physical and cannot be proven by science; however, we all acknowledge the truth of their existence because it is part of our experience.
Our soul influences our choices and our own justice system acknowledges the soul (not explicitly, but implicitly). When we prosecute someone for a murder that was committed over 10 years ago, we are not prosecuting the same "physical" body that committed the murder because 98 percent of all the atoms in a human body are replaced every year. This means that when we prosecute someone for murder (that was committed many years ago) we are prosecuting a physically different body, but we all know we are prosecuting the same "person". How can this be?
The part of every human that makes us responsible and liable for actions that were performed by different atoms (physical body) is our soul. The soul is the "person" who committed murder. If science were the only way we could know anything, then we have been unjustly convicting physical bodies for crimes committed by another physical body.
It's odd that the militant atheists aren't so vocal about this apparent injustice from their worldview. They know murderers and rapists have souls because they want those "persons" prosecuted for crimes committed by another body. Once again, atheists can't prove with science what we all intuitively know--the existence of the soul.
C. Emotions:
The origin of emotions cannot be accounted for in naturalistic terms. Things like love, jealousy, pride, envy, sadness, and guilt (that are all very real and true to our human experience) cannot be reduced to the molecular level.. A water molecule is not proud of itself, hydrogen does not get jealous that oxygen attracts more electrons, and atoms don't get sad when they break their bonds with one another.
The bottom line is naturalism fails to account for a very real part of our human experience—our emotions.
D. The “SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH” of basic human rights:
Science cannot prove the "self-evident truth", that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
The wording here is found in the Declaration of Independence and is the basis for our civil rights. These basic human rights are grounded in the fact that all humans bear the image of God; the image humans bear (their spirit) has a certain worth and dignity that sets us apart from the animal kingdom. This is why animals do not have civil rights--they are not spiritual creatures (i.e. they are not made in the image of God) and therefore are not endowed by their Creator with the same unalienable Rights as humans. Once again we all recognize this self-evident truth; however, science cannot prove this truism.
The bottom line is naturalism does not have the resources to account for evil, love, justice, courage, basic human rights, and the existence of the soul—things we know intuitively because we experience them.
Conclusion: Naturalism fails the Truth test of EXPERIENTIAL RELEVANCE
SUMMARY
Here are the results of how the naturalist/atheist worldview corresponds with reality and coheres with our experience:
1. LOGICAL CONSISTENCY>>> FAIL
2. EMPIRICAL ADEQUACY>>> FAIL
3. EXPERIENTIAL RELEVANCE>>> FAIL