Why Atheism Cannot Be True

Why Atheism Cannot Be True(1) IntroductionThe Argument from Rational Certainty is a transcendental argument for the existence of God. It begins with a basic observation — not about the physical world, but about our rational experience: we possess rational certainty. (Proviso -- I know some people deny that we possess rational certainty... but I would recommend anyone attempt to deny rational certainty next time you review your payslip or go to the bank to pay your bills. Denying rational certainty is like denying reality!)From that single fact, it shows that such certainty requires an all-knowing mind to ground it. How so, I hear you say? If there is no all knowing mind, one that has defined what is objectively true and what is objectively false, then we cannot have certainty that anything at all is true or false. You are not convinced?Stay with the me..My contention is simply this: Any worldview that denies the existence of such a mind, including atheism, collapses into contradiction.The argument is structured as follows:- In part one I will introduce the argument and provides a brief overview.- In part 2 I will provide a detailed justification for each premise.- In part 3 I will summarise each justification and conclude!This argument is structured deductively. If each premise is true, the conclusion follows necessarily. The argument is as follows:- Premise 1: Rational certainty exists.- Premise 2: Rational certainty requires a necessary precondition: an all-knowing mind.- Premise 3: Any worldview that denies this necessary precondition cannot account for rational certainty without contradiction.- Premise 4: Atheism is a worldview that denies the existence of such a mind.- Premise 5: Therefore, atheism entails a contradiction: it depends on rational certainty while denying the precondition that makes rational certainty possible.- Premise 6: A worldview that entails contradiction cannot be true.- Conclusion: Therefore, atheism cannot be true and is necessarily false.(2) JustificationsPREMISE 1: Rational Certainty exists:To begin, we must define what we mean by rational certainty. Rational certainty is not the mere feeling of confidence or strong belief. It is the ontological possession of knowledge that cannot be mistaken. Notice here I am not just talking about any kind of “knowledge.” I am talking about knowledge that must be true and cannot be wrong.Rational certainty is when someone knows something in such a way that the possibility of being wrong is excluded. We might encounter rational certainty in truths like mathematics and logic. For example, that 2 plus 2 equals 4, or that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time and in the same respect. Another example is the statement “I exist.” To deny your own existence requires your existence in order to make the denial.==>> These are truths we appear to know with rational certainty. They cannot be false. Now consider someone who tries to deny that rational certainty exists. That denial faces the exact same problem as denying truth itself. If someone says “truth does not exist,” they are making a truth claim in the very act of denial.==>> They are saying it is true that truth does not exist, which is a contradiction. Likewise, the person who says “rational certainty does not exist” is attempting to make a claim that would have to be supported by rational certainty in order to be meaningful. If they are not rationally certain of the claim “rational certainty does not exist,” then it is just an arbitrary assertion with no epistemic weight.==>> But if they are rationally certain of their denial of rational certainty, then they have contradicted themselves. In other words, to meaningfully deny rational certainty is to presuppose it. Without rational certainty, there is no justification for the claim. You are simply expressing a belief, not demonstrating anything. So the only way to argue that rational certainty does not exist is to use rational certainty to do it. This is contradictory.Therefore, rational certainty is inescapable. It exists in the same way that truth exists: as a necessary precondition for thought, reasoning, and argument.==>> To deny it is to assume it. PREMISE 2: Rational Certainty requires a necessary precondition: An all-knowing mind to ground universal & necessary truthsBefore we defend this premise directly, it is important to explain the kind of reasoning being used here. This is transcendental reasoning, which is not the same as circular reasoning. Circular reasoning occurs when someone assumes the very thing they are trying to prove, without providing any external justification. It is reasoning in a