the argument for god
Despite what popular culture seems to believe, there is no way to logically discern science from pseudo-science. This is a very big problem for atheists who try to promote their worldview as “scientific,” whereas belief in God is “unscientific.”
Atheism MUST deny the existence of the immaterial self (the soul) because if consciousness can exist independent of matter (referring, of course, to the matter that makes up the human brain), then there is no reason to disbelieve in an immaterial, disembodied conscious being such as God.
But, unfortunately for atheism, there are very powerful scientific and philosophical reasons to believe in immaterial conscious beings.
As one studies the modern cosmology and astrophysics, one begins to realize that it has become much like a cat-and-mouse game where hardened atheist scientists try desperately to avoid both the clear theistic implications of Big Bang (origin of the universe) science, and the eerie similarities between the biblical and scientific accounts of creation.
The psychiatric definition of “delusion” associates “delusion” with poor mental health. And a vast amount of research demonstrates that theistic belief is BENEFICIAL to one’s mental (and physical) health…whereas disbelief is HARMFUL. Utilizing the psychiatric definition of “delusion,” then, it is clearly atheists who are more deluded.
Disbelievers in Christ’s resurrection would have one believe that the resurrection is an ancient fable. But it is actually DISBELIEF in Christ’s resurrection that springs from belief in an ancient fable…the ancient fable known as materialism or naturalism.
Atheism claims to be scientifically based but demands exemptions from accepted methods of scientific reasoning and from scientific laws.