A Conversation with an Atheist

Editors note: This conversation took place in the comments of one of Dr. Jason Lisles presentations on YouTube, the Secret Code of Creation.  For the sake of the privacy of the individual I spoke with, I will not link to that specific presentation but will link to another example of the presentation for context. I have also just used the gentleman’s initials for his privacy. For those who don’t watch the presentation, it is about the infinite complexity built into math.


TA: “​How do we know this kind of pattern is from God and not just a quirk of math?”

IHI: “​First you have to explain how math originated without God and why it always works.”

TA: “Why couldn’t math just be a natural quality of the universe?”

IHI: “Ok let me make this clear….if the universe is the result of chance, then why should we expect math to work…or why should any other property of the universe work?”

TA: “​I have no idea, physicists think it doesn’t have to be anything.”

IHI “For example….if the universe is governed by chance….why should not chance change the principles of math tomorrow…or change the laws of logic by chance tomorrow? ​In other words, if everything happened by chance, then chance governs the universe. That being the case, we have no reason to trust what we know today will also be true tomorrow.

TA: “That’s very true, but given the consistency of the past, it is rational to expect tomorrow will be consistent as well.”

IHI “Ok, but that leads to a problem….the universe could not have originated by currently observed processes….so either the universe does not exist, or you can’t be sure truth won’t change tomorrow.”

TA: “You’re right, I can’t be sure the truth won’t change tomorrow.”

IHI “But if the truth could change tomorrow, you have another issue…how do you know what you see today is even true? How do you know that science works for example?”

TA: “​I don’t know anything to be absolutely true, we could all be in a simulation.”

IHI: “See as a Christian, I don’t have that problem. I know what I observe is true because the Bible gives me a foundation to base truth on. I can absolutely state that there is a truth, and that it does not change.”

TA: “I don’t think it’s a problem. But I would wonder how you know the Bible is true.”

IHI: “If the Bible is not true, then there is no foundation for any knowledge at all….you’ve already told me that…”

TA: ” I still don’t see a problem with this.”

IHI “So you’d rather say that it is impossible to know anything, than believe the Bible is true….?”


It was at this point that the conversation stopped.  Given the question I posed, I would be shocked it any kind of coherent reply would have been forthcoming.  However, I posted this conversation for a number of reasons. First, it is refreshing to find an atheist who is both honest and willing to have a discussion.  Most atheists are not willing to be so open about the inconsistencies in their worldview, either because they don’t recognize them, or because they don’t want to recognize them.  Worse, many shut down all dialogue the moment they feel like they might be losing by breaking out the standard atheist response to anything they don’t like: the ad hominem fallacy.

However, there are some things we can all learn from this conversation.  First, don’t actually try to argue with an atheist. It doesn’t work. Instead, ask good, thorough questions.  By asking just a few questions, I was able to point out that the atheistic worldview is inconsistent with any knowledge. Now in this instance, the atheist was willing to admit it. Most of the time they won’t. However, since he admitted it, what he has told me is that he is acting on faith that there is no God, rather than having any reasonable defense for what he believes. Now he is welcome to think that, but logic, reason, and the observable evidence, which I didn’t even bring up, all point to the God of the Bible. Hopefully, this gentleman will think about how absurd his position is and reconsider it.



  1. Let’s hope he doesn’t reconsider in such a fickle manner. There’s not much to gain from a conversation containing so many non-sequiturs. (Sp?)


    1. I’m not entirely sure what you’re driving at but if you’re saying my line of logic is a non-sequiter, then I’m afraid you completely misunderstand how logic works and how the universe functions. If you’re claiming he was using non-sequiters, I maybe could see one or two, but realistically, he’s being very consistent with his worldview.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s