Counting Deterministic Claims of Atheists: Confronting the Nonsense!
I recently got into a heated debate with a staunch atheist based on his argument is based on a lack of freedom of choice and if it did not exist, why he would not bean atheist now in rejection of his previous religious identity. The following are my responses to key points of his statements:
Let me break down the facts here.
Neuroplasticity Debunks the “Fixed Brain” Assumption
The belief that the adult brain is static was dominant until the mid-20th century. Neuroplasticity research shows the brain can reorganize, form new synapses, and adapt throughout life. This undermines deterministic claims that early-life conditions irrevocably fix behavioral outcomes.
Libet’s EEG Experiments Show Preconscious Activity
You are misreading content from the Benjamin Libet’s studies. Libet’s 1980s studies showed brain activity (readiness potential) before conscious awareness of decisions. However, newer research and computational modeling reveal that this activity does not determine the final decision—only that the brain is preparing for action. Libet himself proposed a “veto” function—conscious will can override unconscious impulses. Cognitive neuroscientists now argue that prior interpretations were flawed and do not disprove conscious free will.
Physics: Quantum Mechanics Refutes Determinism
Classical determinism (event A always leads to event B) was once thought to rule out free will. Quantum mechanics, especially Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, introduces probabilistic behavior at the fundamental level of reality. This undermines the idea that all future events—including human decisions—are predetermined. Modern physics no longer supports strict determinism, making room for genuine choice.
Behavioral Science: Complexity and Emergence
Human decision-making involves complex, multi-layered processes that cannot be reduced to simple cause-effect chains. Emergent behavior in neural networks shows that higher-order reasoning and moral deliberation arise from—but are not dictated by—lower-level processes. This supports compatibilist views: free will exists even if influenced by genetics and environment.
Philosophical and Empirical Consensus
Most philosophers (over 60%) support compatibilism—the idea that free will and determinism can coexist, which is also more highly believed by most populations around the world (at least 80-90%). Everyday choices (e.g., what to eat, how to respond to a question) show variability, deliberation, and self-awareness. These are not illusions—they reflect real agency, even if bounded by context rather than blind urges, impulses and instincts.
I am by no means a Christian and in fact I reject the "believe this ancient book as infallible" just as I reject a book written 5 minutes ago is "irrefutable." I shall also point out some other counter arguments based in the previous facts and more without writing a journal and keep on point.
Claim: “Christianity’s central bargain is built on a psychological impossibility”
Counter-Evidence:
C.S. Lewis and other Christian thinkers argue that faith is not blind assent but a rational trust grounded in evidence, experience, and moral intuition. Religious experience is used in apologetics not as coercion but as a form of epistemic trust—akin to trusting memory or perception. Philosophical rebuttals to unreliability arguments show that supernatural belief is not epistemically tainted simply because it arises from evolved cognitive mechanisms. Christianity’s “bargain” is not a demand for irrational belief, but an invitation to trust based on conscience, reason, and experience.
Psychological impossibility is a strawman.
Claim: “Telling skeptics to ‘just believe’ is like telling a depressed person to ‘just cheer up’”
Counter-Evidence:
Another appeal to emotion than a valid reasoning.
Belief is not binary. People move through stages of doubt, inquiry, and assent. Studies show that belief can be cultivated through exposure, dialogue, and reflection. Faith traditions often emphasize process—not instant conversion. Theological frameworks like prevenient (as opposed to antecedent) grace or gradual sanctification account for this. The analogy fails because belief is not a mood—it’s a cognitive stance. While emotional states can influence belief, they don’t define its possibility.
Claim: “Supernatural claims make genuine belief logically impossible”
Counter-Evidence:
This is an opinion rather than an incontestable fact
Philosophy of religion shows that belief in the supernatural is not logically incoherent. It may be unverifiable, but that doesn’t make it irrational. Cognitive science of religion finds that humans are naturally predisposed to infer agency and purpose—making supernatural belief cognitively plausible.
Epistemology allows for rational belief in unprovable claims (e.g., moral realism, consciousness, mathematical truths). Logical impossibility requires contradiction. Supernatural belief may be controversial, but it’s not incoherent or irrational by default.
Claim: “Christianity’s transactional model is farcical and morally bankrupt”
This is a false appeal to emotion than a valid argument.
Counter-Evidence:
Theological ethics (e.g., Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard) reject transactional faith. Christianity’s core is relational, not contractual. Empirical studies show mixed moral outcomes among Christians, but also strong correlations between faith and altruism, resilience, and social cohesion.
Critiques of prosperity theology are valid—but they target distortions, not the foundational Christian ethic of grace and transformation. The “transactional model” critique applies to fringe distortions, not historic Christianity. The moral bankruptcy claim ignores centuries of ethical thought and sacrificial practice.
Claim: “Your brain instantly forms beliefs without asking permission”
This is a false sweeping statement.
Counter-Evidence:
Yes, some beliefs form automatically, but others require deliberation, evidence, and moral, ethical reasoning. Belief updating is possible and measurable. People revise beliefs in response to strong evidence, especially when it’s perceived as credible. The brain forms beliefs both automatically and reflectively. The claim is half-true, but misleading when generalized.
Claim: “You can’t force yourself to believe something you find implausible”
This is your personal perspective being made into a sweeping assumption.
Counter-Evidence:
Belief change is not about force though many try and force others to believe or claim to believe or suffer a penalty of death. Its true for some. It is not true for the majority.
Predominately it’s about exposure, reasoning, and trust.
More than a few studies and experiments show that people do change beliefs when presented with compelling evidence. You claim as much about yourself which contradicts you other claims and conclusions. Faith (trust based) traditions often acknowledge doubt and encourage inquiry.
Belief and faith are not the same things though many use them synonymous in error. Beliefs are cultivated, not coerced, at least not for the most part.
Implausibility is subjective.
What seems implausible today may become credible through experience or reflection, new information with scientific discoveries or "missed information" to be acknowledged, included and adapted.
Claim: “Faith as a gift you’re condemned for lacking is a paradox”
Counter-Evidence:
Theological nuance: Many traditions (e.g., Arminianism) reject the idea that faith is given arbitrarily. They affirm human response and moral, ethical agency. Philosophical models of divine foreknowledge and human freedom (e.g., Molinism) resolve this tension without contradiction.
The paradox is theological, not psychological. It’s debated, but not incoherent.
Claim: “Coercion—threats of hell or promises of heaven—never result in true belief”
Counter-Evidence:
Coercion may influence behavior, but belief formation depends on perceived credibility, not fear alone. Historical conversions often involve moral awakening, not mere fear.
Pascal’s Wager, for example, is a rational appeal—not a threat.
Coercion is a poor evangelistic tool, but it doesn’t invalidate the possibility of genuine belief.
Most believers arrive at faith through conscience, not compulsion.
Quoting Others Tactic
When he did not like these responses, he doubled down with quotes from other sources. First I pointed out he is doing exactly the same kind of nonsense as those whom he condemns. The following are the list of those quotes and comments:
Claim: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Chirstipher Hitchens
Fallacy: Category error and rhetorical overreach.
Not all assertions are empirical—some are axiomatic, experiential, or philosophical. Dismissing without engagement ignores context and undermines discourse. The statement itself is an assertion without evidence, making it self-defeating.
Claim: “I content we are both athiests, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you ill understand why I dismiss yours.”
Stephen F. Roberts
Fallacy: False equivalence and rhetorical sleight.
This statement conflates disbelief in multiple deities with disbelief in all deities, ignoring qualitative distinctions. Dismissing Zeus or Odin involves historical, theological, and cultural analysis—not a blanket rejection. The comparison assumes all god-concepts are interchangeable, which erases the philosophical depth and metaphysical claims unique to monotheism. It’s clever rhetoric, but not a logically sound argument.
Claim: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Carl Sagan
Fallacy: Ambiguity and epistemic inflation.
This aphorism is not a formal principle of logic or science It introduces a subjective threshold: what counts as “extraordinary” varies by worldview, context, and prior assumptions. Evidence is either sufficient or insufficient—not “ordinary” or “extraordinary” by any objective metric. Demanding “extraordinary” proof often becomes a rhetorical gatekeeping tactic, not a neutral standard.
He also stated that "The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both." True spirituality, in his view, arises from the pursuit of truth, beauty, and meaning through rational inquiry, though it would be an error to assume supernatural context.
Additionally this, like many things, if not understood the context can result in this also being considered a fallacy of subjective reasoning. For example, sciences and spirituality operate in different domains, methodological versus experiential. However, both have their own inherent dogmas (opinions) and doctrines (what's written down based on those opinions and conclusions) that are sometimes complimentary and sometimes not.
Claim: “A god that doesn’t manifest is indistinguishable from a god that doesn’t exist.”
Matt Dillahunty
Fallacy: Category error and epistemic reductionism.
This statement assumes that manifestation must be empirical, physical, or sensory to count as real—ignoring metaphysical, moral, or experiential modes of presence.
It conflates ontological existence with empirical detectability, which is a philosophical error. Many accepted entities (e.g. abstract numbers, moral truths, consciousness) do not “manifest” in the material sense, yet are not dismissed as nonexistent.
The claim also presumes a narrow definition of “manifestation,” excluding historical, relational, and transformative evidence found in religious traditions or even evidence of intelligence, order and harmony within nature and the universe, and intelligence does not imply just "information" but awareness, though incomprehensible from our limited perceptions.
Claim: “Things that do not exist cannot be the cause of other things.”
Tracie Harris, the Atheist Experience
Fallacy: Ontological oversimplification and epistemic presumption.
This statement assumes that only materially verifiable entities can be causal, ignoring abstract causes like laws, logic, or intentions. For example, mathematical truths and moral principles—which are not physical objects—routinely shape real-world outcomes.
Moreover, hypothetical constructs (like models in physics) often guide discovery and innovation. The claim collapses metaphysical nuance into material reductionism, which is philosophically untenable.
I then threw him a curve ball...
"I suppose you will then resort to stating “God cannot exist outside of time or space and therefore cannot exist because nothing exists outside of space-time?”
He replied; "Yes, exactly"
I smirked and threw it back with:
Fallacy: Begging the question and metaphysical reductionism.
This argument presumes that existence must be confined to space-time—a claim it never proves. It treats space-time as the totality of reality, ignoring that space-time itself had a beginning, as shown by Big Bang cosmology. If space-time began, its cause must be outside it.
That’s not theological sleight-of-hand—it’s the logical implication of causality.
Philosophical models like the Kalam Cosmological Argument and theological doctrines of divine transcendence both affirm that a timeless, spaceless cause is not only possible, but necessary.
Limiting “existence” to physical dimensions is a category error: it conflates physical presence with metaphysical being and yet does not discount either.
Frustrated, he tried throwing me quotes for which I was growing bored, yet I allowed myself to be subjected to it so I might contest them as well which to a certain factor amused me with his increasingly hostile tone, as it was obvious he was unaware I have heard all these before and learned where they came from.
Claim: “Anyone who can convince you to believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
Falsely attributed to Voltaire
Fallacy: Post hoc generalization and rhetorical determinism.
This statement—often misattributed to Voltaire, does not appears in his original writings. The closest verified source is from his 1765 work Questions sur les Miracles, where he wrote:
Original: “Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde, est en droit de vous rendre injuste.”
Translation: “Certainly, anyone who has the power to make you absurd has the power to make you unjust.”
This line was later paraphrased and popularized—especially in English—as the version involving “atrocities.” The transformation likely came through 20th-century writers and commentators, including Norman L. Torrey in Les Philosophes (1961).
So while the sentiment is Voltairean, the phrasing is modern and interpretive—not a direct quote.—suggests a direct causal link between absurd belief and violent action.
But history shows that belief in absurdities does not uniformly lead to atrocities, nor are atrocities always rooted in absurd beliefs. People commit atrocities for power, fear, ideology, or obedience—often in spite of their beliefs, not because of them. The quote oversimplifies complex sociopolitical dynamics and weaponizes ambiguity to imply inevitability where none exists
Claim: “In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence.”
Floyd Toole
Fallacy: Oversimplification and selective framing.
This statement falsely assumes that religion uniformly rejects contrary evidence, while science uniformly accepts it. In reality:
Science often resists paradigm shifts (e.g., heliocentrism, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics) until overwhelming evidence forces change.
Religion has a long history of internal reform and reinterpretation in response to new data (e.g., Vatican acceptance of evolution and Big Bang cosmology).
Both domains contain confirmation bias, dogma, and self-correction mechanisms. The claim caricatures religion as irrational and science as infallible—neither of which holds under scrutiny.
Claim: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
Philip K. Dick
Fallacy (when used as argument): Equivocation and poetic ambiguity.
While evocative, this quote conflates ontological persistence with epistemic certainty. It implies that belief is irrelevant to reality’s existence—which is true in a metaphysical sense—but it sidesteps the problem of defining reality in the first place. Many things persist without belief (e.g., gravity), but others—like social constructs, values, or institutions—exist precisely because people believe in them. The quote is philosophically suggestive, not logically airtight. It’s a poetic heuristic, not a proof.
It continued like this for several hours with the same kind of warn out arguments and finally asked him to respond to the following.
QUESTION:
Does the universe have laws, reciprocal dynamics and is composed of a singular ultimate essence?
His response after some hesitation: Yes.
My Response: All three nonphsycial but effect the physical.
Natural Laws
Nonphysical: Laws like gravity, thermodynamics, and motion are not tangible objects—they’re abstract principles describing consistent behavior.
Effect on the physical: These laws determine how matter and energy behave. You can’t touch “gravity,” but it shapes planetary orbits and falling apples.
Reciprocal Dynamics
Nonphysical: Reciprocity—like action/reaction, feedback loops, or conservation principles—is a relational structural process, not a material entity.
Effect on the physical: These dynamics govern interactions between physical systems. For example, Newton’s Third Law explains how rockets launch, even though the law itself isn’t a physical object.
Ultimate Essence
Nonphysical: This refers to metaphysical or philosophical concepts like consciousness, divine being, or unified field theories. These are not directly observable or measurable.
Effect on the physical: If such an essence exists (e.g., as the ground of being or source of all matter), it would underlie and sustain physical reality—even if it transcends it.
In short: nonphysical does not mean non-real. These principles and structures are intellectually grasped, not physically held—but they shape everything we see, touch, and experience.
Why This Holds:
Natural Laws: If gravitational constants, quantum behaviors, and thermodynamic principles remain invariant across cosmic epochs—and if they were operative at or before the Big Bang—then they are not emergent properties of this universe, but preconditions for its existence. That makes them ontologically prior, and thus eternal in the metaphysical sense.
Reciprocal Dynamics: If motion and counter-motion, symmetry, and conservation are not contingent but intrinsic to reality’s structure, then they are not products of time—they are structural absolutes. Eternity here means timeless applicability, not infinite duration.
Ultimate Essence: By definition, any metaphysical ground of being (e.g., Logos, Brahman, the One) must be uncaused, indivisible, and beyond space-time. If it were subject to change or origin, it would be contingent—not ultimate. Eternity here is not just persistence, but necessary existence.
Philosophical Precision:
To say something is eternal is to say it is:
Atemporal (not bound by time)
Immutable (not subject to change)
Necessary (cannot not exist)
Several factors of physics indeed point to the eternity of these principles.
Laws Require a Lawgiver (Non-moral context)
Natural laws—like gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics—are abstract, immaterial, and universal. They are not physical objects, but descriptions of consistent behavior.
These laws are mathematically elegant, internally coherent, and intelligible to conscious minds. That intelligibility implies intentional structure, not random emergence.
If these laws are eternal and unchanging, they cannot be the product of chaotic forces. They suggest a source with rational capacity—a “lawgiver” in the metaphysical sense.
Clarification: Stable laws, which are observed everywhere at all macro/micro-levels implies a mind-like origin—a source capable of generating order, consciousness and thought, all expressing intelligence.
ynamics Require a Directive Cause
Dynamics refer to motion, interaction, and transformation—how things change and relate.
Motion is not self-originating. It requires:
Initial conditions (what moved first)
Rules of interaction (how things respond)
Directionality (why systems evolve or stabilize)
Even in closed systems, dynamics follow structured pathways—not arbitrary chaos. That structure implies a directive cause: something that initiates and sustains motion according to intelligible principles.
Clarification: It’s a recognition that relational behavior in the universe presupposes intentional architecture—not just brute fact.
Ultimate Essence Requires a Necessary Ground
If the universe exhibits intelligible laws and structured dynamics, then it presupposes not just order and motion—but being itself. That leads us to essence, which is not a law or a process, but the substrate of existence.
Why Essence Requires a Ground:
Essence is not emergent—it is what makes emergence possible.
It is not composed, not contingent, and not temporal.
It must be self-existent, because anything that derives its being from something else is not ultimate.
This is the domain of metaphysical necessity. Whether framed as:
Essence
Life Force
Energy
Mana
…the claim is the same: there must be something that simply is, without cause, without change, and without dependency. That is ultimate essence—the ground from which laws and dynamics derive their possibility empowering them even as they give it innumerable forms or expressions of beingness.
That is science, philosophy, spirituality and theology.
This triad forms a metaphysical architecture:
Laws describes the structure
Dynamics animate the structure
Essence sustains the structure
So, you acknowledge this much yes?
In frustration he said no or that I was twisting facts. I asked him how and he could not give specifics. So he asked how could these things then apply to religion or my religion? I laughed and stated; deductive logic and recognizing cross cultural connections often overlooked and key factors expressed through the very same sources of the philosophies he grasped at but failed to properly appreciate their original sources of inspiration that the very ones he champions either don't know, do not know what they are talking about or lying to themselves and others.
I then stated I call these things collectively the Drikeyu (Three Keys).
Key One - Worloga — Laws and The One God
Function: Represents the eternal, intelligible structure of reality—natural laws, cosmic order, and the rational architecture of existence.
The One God: Not a deity of intervention, but of origin and intelligibility. The Lawgiver whose mind-like essence gives rise to the laws that govern all phenomena.
Philosophical Parallel: Logos (Stoicism), Nous (Neoplatonism), Pure Act (Aquinas).
Symbolic Role: The architect—not of commandments, but of coherence.
Key Two - Wyrda — Dynamics and the Three Goddesses
Function: Embodies motion, causality, and relational flow—reciprocal dynamics that animate the cosmos.
The Three Goddesses: Likely personifications of time, transformation, and interdependence—perhaps akin to the Norns, Moirai, or Trimūrti.
Directive Cause: Wyrda is not passive law, but active unfolding—the principle that sets systems into motion and sustains their evolution.
Philosophical Parallel: Tao (Daoism), Prakriti (Samkhya), kinetic causality in Aristotelian physics.
Symbolic Role: The weavers of becoming.
Key Three - Wihas — Essence and All States of Being
Function: The substrate of existence—spiritual and material, visible and invisible.
Essence: Not a product of motion or law, but the ground of being from which all forms arise.
All Beings and States: Wihas encompasses ontology itself—the “is-ness” of everything, from atoms to souls.
Philosophical Parallel: Brahman (Vedanta), The One (Plotinus), Being qua Being (Heidegger).
Symbolic Role: The breath beneath form.
So, I stated that in these considerations and aside from the various perspectives, triadic model is not just symbolic—it’s metaphysically coherent. It allows for a theology that is non-anthropomorphic, non-dualistic, and structurally rigorous.
Let us consider this another way:
1) The universe follows eternal laws—unchanging, precise, and universal. These laws were not created by the universe; they were established by The One God. He does not follow them—He is their source. The One is personal in nature, but does not interfere with creation. His presence is foundational, not controlling.
2) All motion, change, and interaction in the universe follow divine patterns. These dynamics were woven by the Three Goddesses, who embody transformation and flow. They do not intervene—they set the structure in motion. They are personal beings, yet impersonal toward creation itself.
3) Everything that exists—spiritual and material—shares a common essence. This essence is eternal and uncaused. It is the breath beneath all form, the ground of being. Wihas is not a product of the universe—it is what makes the universe possible.
These three—Law, Motion, and Essence—are eternal, interconnected, and compatible with both science and spiritual cosmology. They do not evolve from the universe; they precede it.
Those who establish them—the One and the Three—remain personal in nature, yet impersonal in governance. They do not follow the laws or dynamics—they originate them.
It is not a belief system built on blind faith or myth and does not sideline personal responsibilities—it’s a metaphysical architecture that:
Explains why laws exist and remain stable.
Accounts for motion and interaction without invoking intervention.
Grounds existence in essence, not emergence.
It’s compatible with science, but not reducible to it. It’s spiritually resonant, but not sentimentally framed. And it’s logically structured to avoid the common fallacies that plague both materialist dismissals and simplistic theologies.
This model also confronts the previous fallacies.
Doesn’t rely on empirical proof for metaphysical claims.
It shows conceptual necessity: laws, motion, and being must have a source.
It’s about recognizing that the testable depends on the untestable.
This halts regress by identifying a necessary foundation—not just another link in the chain.
Unlike models that collapse under endless causation, it provides a terminus: being that simply is.
This respects the boundary between what science observes and what metaphysics explains.
it presents The One and The Three as personal in nature but impersonal toward creation—transcendent authors, not managers.
This preserves theological depth without falling into cartoonish literalism.
It’s Not Plugging Gaps—It’s Explaining Foundations
The triad of Worloga (Law), Wyrda (Dynamics), and Wihas (Essence) doesn’t invoke divinity to explain what science hasn’t figured out while leaving plenty of room for sciences to figure out without conflict.
Instead, it addresses why laws, motion, and being exist at all—questions that science presupposes but cannot answer.
These are preconditions, not placeholders. I' not saying “God fills the unknown,” but “God establishes the known.”
It’s Metaphysical, Not Mechanical
The One and the Three are not invoked to explain lightning, disease, or quantum anomalies.
They are originators of intelligibility, not interveners in complexity.
This avoids the trap of shrinking divinity as science expands—because your framework places divinity outside the system, not inside its gaps.
It’s Compatible with Scientific Discovery
Scientific progress doesn’t threaten the Drikeyu model—it confirms it.
Every new law discovered, every dynamic mapped, every particle traced, reinforces the idea that reality is structured, relational, and grounded.
Your framework doesn’t fear explanation—it requires it, because explanation reveals the architecture laid by Worloga, Wyrda, and Wihas.
The Divine Is Not Reactive—It’s Foundational
The One and the Three do not “step in” when humans are confused.
They do not intervene, adjust, or patch reality.
They are personal in nature, but impersonal toward creation—not because they are distant, but because they are transcendent.
After being silent for a few moment, he said he just cannot believe or accept such things. I laughed and said he is making the same statement others you argue with and condemn as stupid who refuse to accept your views which is blind hypocrisy. I then followed with, "And who said I stated or demanded you have to believe in anything?"
You often say things like "You need to listen to what I am saying," which instead by the very same measure you use with others you are actually making a demand of "believe what I demand of you and do not believe in things I refuse to" or simply "agree with me or else." How is your behavior then any different from those others and your rejection of presented facts and examples you can test, question and contemplate on your own that you now simply choose not to remotely superior to those who hold different beliefs and refuse to believe the evidence you present? It is not.
With that he discontinued conversation ended discontinued the discussion.
Be mindful this was not for me about winning.