Home Tour About Read What's New Help Join Faith
My Account Login

Get Our Devotional             Win Publishing Package             Detailed Navigation

The HOME for Christian writers! The Home for Christian Writers!



What's New
Rethinking freethinking
by Kenny Paul Clarkson
For Sale
Author requests article critique


Atheists present themselves as freethinkers and pursuers of truth. But research into the mindset of atheism will prove otherwise. In fact, one of the most effective means of strengthening one's faith in Christianity is to delve into a study of atheism.

A most common method of study is to research the Internet. There one will find that most Web sites dedicated to atheism provide little more than verbal mooning. These sites provide the equivalent to reams of obnoxious sarcasm. Few make valid arguments.

Here are some examples:


Atheists fancy themselves to be rationalists. They sacrifice all that is theoretical on the altar of observable, testable science. They want nothing more than solid evidence, they say. And without that, skepticism is in order.

But confront atheists with evidence that challenges their belief system and, inevitably, they will retreat to that which they claim to detest: Improvable presumptions and "what if" scenarios. Combined, I call these "X factors."


There are many examples of atheists retreating from facts to embrace X factors. But none is more enlightening than when confronted with this irrefutable fact: The existence of planets capable of life support is mathematically impossible anywhere in the universe.

In years gone by, noted astrophysicists, such as the acclaimed Carl Sagan, began to innumerate the parameters required for life-sustaining planets to exist. From that, a calculated estimation was made of the number of possible life-site planets throughout the universe. One of the most obvious parameters was the need for water. If there is no water, no life can exist.


With fewer than a dozen such parameters listed, the prospect of millions of life sites was determined. But the number of parameters was incomplete. The limited number highly exaggerated the number of prospective life sites. As astrophysicists added known parameters to the list, the number of prospective life sites decreased proportionally. Eventually, the number of parameters for life-existence grew to the point that the estimated number of life sites decreased to zero. As even more parameters were added, the number of possible life-sites declined even further to a negative number.

By 1998 the list of parameters had grown to 75. The number of possible life sites was approximately 10 22. But the probability that all 75 parameters would occur was determined to be approximately 10 -99, a number that far exceeds the number of possible life sites. That's less than 1 chance in hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe. It makes the prospect mathematically impossible.1


When confronted with documented scientific facts that weigh heavily in favor of divine intervention, atheists are forced to abandon their self-delusion of being rationalists. They nearly always retreat to hypothetical (and often pathetical) X factors in feeble attempts to explain away the evidence. In fact, the tables are turned. Atheists can no longer boast themselves as honestly seeking evidence. Rather, they become the apologists for grossly exaggerated fantasies.

Atheists frequently will appeal to an X factor that, they presume, will increase the odds of the existence of possible life-support planets. Commonly, they will suggest that there are an infinite number of universes and, therefore, an infinite number of possible life-support sites. That, however, does not change the math.

Even if there were an infinite number of universes, the fact remains that life is mathematically impossible in our universe. What's more, one hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion universes would be required to produce one life site planet. The possiblity doesn't change. And that's assuming that multiple universes exist. It is an unknown (hence, an X factor).

By appealing to the multiple universe argument, atheists must abandon their pretence of observational-based reason to embrace an improvable and untestable supposition.

"Life as we know it" is another X factor embraced by atheists in their effort to deny the evidence. Even if there were alternate life forms (a suggestion wholly negated by biologists) the math still remains: The possibility of a planet suitable for carbon-based life is mathematically impossible.


Most, if not all, atheists embrace evolution. As “pure science” it is unencumbered by the influence of religion. It is the foundation and excuse for their philosophy. Evolution gives atheists "evidence" upon which to anchor their faith.

For example: Ten years ago, atheists knew that humans were descended from Neandertal. It was an accepted “scientific fact.” Theists who scoffed at the notion of human descending from lower hominids were roundly dismissed as believers in fanciful fairy tales; willfully ignorant of hard science.

Today, those who possess older textbooks still “know” that Neandertal is our ancestor. Those with text books published after 1997 will “know” that DNA testing proved conclusively that Neandertal is unrelated to homo sapiens. It seems the only things evolving are the textbooks themselves.


The point is this: Evolution is a fluid, unstable theory. That is, it changes. What evolution stated as scientific fact ten years ago is, today, a verified fallacy. And the “observable, provable scientific facts” of today may be dismissed during the next decade. The science upon which atheism is anchored is floating. And if the fact of today is the fallacy of tomorrow, then in reality, it is no fact at all. It is upon that anchorless rhetoric that atheists build their claim of reason.

In fact, atheism is not reasonable at all.

1 foonote

If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! TRUST JESUS NOW

Read more articles by Kenny Paul Clarkson or search for articles on the same topic or others.

Read More - Free Reprints, Main Site Articles, Most Read Articles or highly acclaimed Challenge Articles. Read Great New Release Christian Books for FREE in our Free Reads for Reviews Program. Christian writers can JOIN US at FaithWriters for Free. Grow as a Writer and help spread the Gospel.

The opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect the opinion of FaithWriters.com.

Hire a Christian Writer, Christian Writer Wanted, Christian Writer Needed, Christian Content Needed
Find a Christian Editor, Hire a Christian Editor, Christian Editor, Find a Christian Writer
This article has been read 5209 times     < Previous | Next >

Member Comments
Member Date
Gina Love 24 Jul 2005
I always give one good and one bad when I critique. Good: I enjoyed this article. You presented clear examples of inconsistent atheist rationale (as it were) and did not resort to the mudslinging that often accompanies these kinds of articles. Thank you for presenting both solid discussion and Christian charity. Bad: Never begin a sentence with the word "but". use "however" followed by a comma or omit it completely. Excellent piece all around otherwise.
Kenny Paul Clarkson 24 Jul 2005
But what if I like starting sentences with "but"? See my article or creative writing here>>>
Mitzi Busby 21 Jul 2005
In math, X is an unknown. We serve the True, Living God who we are able to come into a relationship with through the blood of His Son upon Calvary. This is very well put. I like the footnote as well.


Free Audio Bible
500 Plus Languages
Faith Comes By Hearing.com