Solomon & Atheism

Richard Aberdeen
10 min readDec 13, 2022
Solomon & Atheism
Solomon & Atheism — Mike B — Pexels

The obvious question for atheists and agnostics is, how can the grand design universal reality, universal or any other laws, processes and/or, an integrated functional system of any kind, exist unto themselves, without any intelligence behind them? Can a factory of robots and computers, with the ability to “self-design” and perform many complex functions on their own, somehow magically exist unto themselves, apart from a designer and creator somewhere up the chain? Why would any scientist or other rational human being even consider such a possibility?

And the larger unanswered question is, why would anybody want to embrace the religion of atheism? What is the point and what does atheism do for us? Does it provided us with any solution for our bad behavior? Does atheism offer any hope to our 21st Century offspring poised to inherit a war-torn global mass pollution nightmare? Exactly what good is atheism to anybody and, what common human being problem has it ever solved?

Why would a concept of both Creator and atheism exist within a randomly existing blind overall advantage driven system? If there is no God, what evolutionary advantage is gained from claiming that there is one? And if there is a God, what evolutionary advantage is gained in denying God’s existence? Either way, what evolutionary or any other advantage is there for either humans or any other organism to deliberately lie to itself and its own offspring?

Many atheists claim that “Atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods”. The problem with such a statement is that it is an obvious lie unto itself, as there are at least five claims contained within this single self-contradictory statement: 1) atheism is the default position; 2) atheism makes no claims; 3) the universe is not or probably not created; 4) there is no God or probably no God and 5) there are no gods or probably no gods. It’s not all that difficult to determine that such atheists are by default, deceiving themselves.

Unlike many atheists claim, the true default position, agreed to for centuries by scientists and millions of other intelligent people is: There is a physical reality containing life and various other phenomena called “universe”. The default question then becomes, how and why is there a physical reality called “universe”? Atheists, if they want to be take seriously at all, don’t receive a pass on this two-pronged foundational question of science, education and reason, anymore than the rest of us do.

Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I AM”. God as “I AM” which apparently isn’t found anywhere else in human history prior to Moses, remains the only ancient concept of God still matching the current modern evidence. And, Eternal Creator remains the only known concept in all of human history that satisfies origins, rationally explaining both our own existence and the rest of the observable universal reality.

What evidence is there for magically existing universal laws and complex universal systems containing quad-zillions zillions trillions of complex integrated parts within parts within more parts? Atheism doesn’t rationally explain anything at all and as such, it is just a faulty position without foundation in evidence, purpose, reason or rhyme.

Why would a modern educated man or woman choose an inferior explanation, rather than the best explanation currently available? Why would they instead embrace an irrational position that neither explains their own existence or what their eyes, nose, mouth, ears and fingers can detect? Why would anyone choose either atheism or agnosticism, neither of which rationally explain anything at all? Why does someone who “disbelieves” in God capitalize “Natural Selection”? Is Charles Darwin their god and evolution their religion?

Can a microbe inhabiting a petri dish in a science laboratory fairly and accurately claim that there is no creator of the petri dish, there is no human scientist observing the actions of the microbe, there is no laboratory the dish is contained in, no one either conceived of, designed or constructed the laboratory or the larger universal reality wherein somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, located on one of quad-zillions of planets, the laboratory happens to exist. How would the microbe have any way of knowing and, what evidence does it have?

While astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson claims that “nothing is 100% verifiable”, most rational people tend to embrace the most probable rather than the least probable. For example the sun is most probably larger and warmer than the moon, even when it rains hard for several days in a row, most probably the rain will eventually stop and, no matter which way the ill wind blows, most probably modern politicians will continue to lie and lie and lie yet again.

According to physicist Paul Davies, “there is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life. . . the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires.” This is exactly what one would expect if the universe is created and designed with deliberate preparation, forethought and intention for the eventual emergence of life.

When human beings decide to construct a tall commercial building, they typically first survey a potential parcel of land, carefully consider what costs, building codes and long-term stability such a skyscraper will require, draw up architectural plans, dig a deep hole, drill even deeper to secure footings and otherwise, carefully first prepare the “environment” that the skyscraper is going to eventually occupy.

Later steel, wood, concrete and various other “building blocks” are carted in by truck and carefully positioned at the construction location. Only later does the general public begin to see the actual high-rise tower emerging from the ground. One might fairly ask why many scientists today refuse to consider the obvious overwhelming probability, that the reason the universe is fine-tuned for the “building blocks” and “environments” that life requires, is because our Creator first planned, prior to the universe coming into being, for the eventual emergence of life ? ? ?

The probability that the universe is not a result of deliberate conception, design and creation has been calculated by British scientist Roger Penrose as being at least 10 to the 10,123 power against. Meanwhile, all of the photons and other particles in the known universe combined total a number far smaller than only 10 to the 150th power. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the universe is mathematically designed to both pi and the golden ratio. These two numbers theoretically extend forever and ever, something only an eternal Creator could logically master.

And, it has been concluded by many currently practicing scientists, including some atheistic scientists, that the entire premise of natural selection simply doesn’t mathematically even begin to add up. For example, in spite of the overwhelming complexity of DNA alone, there isn’t a shred of evidence that any kind of meaningful language sentence or mathematical or other type of code can randomly exist unto itself, given even an infinite amount of time to somehow magically self-assemble.

In fact, many experiments conducted by mathematicians and other scientists demonstrate the exact opposite of what Darwinian evolution postulates. That neither RNA or DNA code could manage to randomly form by unguided natural processes, given even an infinite amount of time to somehow “self-design” without the input of a Creator.

Geneticists within the past decade or two have discovered that microbes living within human beings and other visible forms of life can change and re-arrange their own DNA. Such changes more than likely cause visible creatures to adapt and change in order to survive, changes that are not random as natural selection theory postulates. Scientists have also learned that viruses can change their own DNA which again, more than likely cause visible forms of life to adapt and change over time. Such changes are not random because they have an attributable cause and, they are independent of natural selection as commonly understood and applied.

It would seem that evolving human technology that allowed science to map the human genome might just naturally self-select Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection entirely out of the universal reality, who can say for sure? And yet scientist Richard Dawkins insists that probabilities have no relevance to God’s existence, no matter how improbable the existence of the universe otherwise may be. One might fairly ask, why would a scientist embrace such an irrational position? Isn’t the sun most probably larger and warmer than the moon? Does modern atheism really make any rational sense at all?

It doesn’t take much of a Solomon to ask, why is the blind faith religion of atheism religiously promoted in American public schools, at the expense of science, reason, common horse sense and the majority of Americans who believe in God? What reproductive or any other advantage is there in denying a fair and equal voice to science, reason, common horse sense, all of the known evidence, the majority of historical scientists and educators and, the majority of current American educators and other citizens?

Modern studies demonstrate that many animals and insects including dolphins, bears, elephants monkeys, birds, ants, spiders, frogs, fish and even bees can do basic math, indicating that mathematics is intricately woven into the grand universal design itself, rather than being of human invention. Tunisian desert ants can apparently do geometry as well as basic arithmetic and, some fish display accurate awareness of how many others are in the same school of fish.

Modern research has learned that bees do basic math and understand the concept of zero. More surprisingly, primates, birds and bees can learn symbols matching specific quantities, which was long assumed to be something only the far more complex human brain could accomplish. Even flower petals and plant leaves appear to be rather ingeniously mathematically arranged.

If animals and insects could count prior to the emergence of human beings, then quite obviously mathematics is not a human invention; if the arrangement of flower petals are tied to math, this only underscores the reality that mathematics existed long prior to human beings. And, scientists from the ancient Greeks forward have long been intrigued by the mysterious relationship between music and mathematics.

Although perhaps difficult to imagine today, the majority of scientists not very long ago in historical terms, believed that disease spontaneously arises. Not being content for that being a lesson in humility learned the hard way, many today who anoint themselves as among the enlightened few and far between, would have us believe the entire universe spontaneously arose. Atheism, rather than representing evolutionary “advancement”, is a giant leap backwards towards non-evidence based dark ages of the distant past.

Atheists have more than a significant problem trying to explain how Jesus, born in a rural backward insignificant place and time into a largely illiterate society, could possess such profound wisdom and understanding and be so exactly morally correct and otherwise accurate every time, all of the time. Even Freud wasn’t aware of of what, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, modern behavioral science evidence today clearly demonstrates; just like Jesus taught us, what causes greed, avarice, slavery, inequality of wealth, murder, theft, war and other human oppression, arises from what is within all human beings.

Richard Dawkins, who specializes in human and animal behavior, seems to grasp the supremely intelligent and highly significant teachings of Jesus, posting a photo of himself on his own website wearing a t-shirt reading “atheists for Jesus”. As Solomon would more than likely conclude, it is very, very, very hard to argue with Jesus, no matter who you are or how many educational degrees you may possess.

How could an expert in human behavior somehow miss the fact that we “all have sinned and fall short” of moral and other perfection? Perhaps someone should inquire of Mr. Dawkins, if you don’t believe you are a sinner, try doing what you think is good all the time and, see how well you do. Perhaps Solomon might seriously challenge a behavioral scientist who claimed they could obey their own conscience all of the time.

There is far more evidence for deliberate design and creation, than there is for black holes, invisible light and all of the claims of modern science combined. It requires far too much blind faith belief for an honest human being to be an atheist. It is far easier to embrace the obvious truth of universal grand design staring us right in the 21st Century face.

Consider how difficult it would be for a scientist to demonstrate by evidence there is no God, probably no God or might be no God. Yet, this is what many so-called ‘scientists’ repeatedly say. To even begin such a foolhardy exercise in futility, one has to be able to demonstrate by scientific evidence, that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, light from no light, intelligence from no intelligence, life from no life and, that mathematics somehow magically exists unto itself.

To pretend otherwise is to violate the basic rules of science and evidence and, would likely cause both Solomon and the ancient Greeks to scorn and ridicule any such so-called ‘scientist’. As one can clearly see, it requires far more blind faith to embrace atheism than it does to believe in Harry Potter, Santa Clause, the flying spaghetti monster, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, astrology, prime time television, the honesty of priests, preachers, self-help and other gurus, politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen and all of the religions, mythologies, science fiction and other fiction novels, children’s stories and fairy tales and any and all other known tales in the history of human civilization combined.

Why are scientists and other human beings so engaged in searching for what is true? Who lied to us and, why? Do atheistic and agnostic educators and scientists who roam ivory towers and prance around claiming there is no God, probably no God or might be no God really know what is true? Is there any scientific, rational or other reason why the average truck driver, motel maid, software engineer or any of the rest of us should believe them? Or, are they just randomly pulling our DNA chain backwards?

Contact author: