I do not have the faith to be an atheist in the light of holes in atheistic theories. In 1687, physicists believed in the Static Universe Theory. In 1915 physicists believed in the Einsteinian universe theory. In 1929 physicists traded that for the Expanding Universe Theory more commonly called the Big Bang. We also have the Oscillating Universe theory, the Inflationary Universe Theory and the more recent Multiverse theory. All of these theories cannot be disproven by scientific experiment, these theories cannot even be tested fully by experiment, nor can any claim the monopoly of fact. Throw in state-of-the-art M-theory, superstring theory and Brane cosmology and you have different ideas that simply try to justify or support a physicist’s position. Again no monopoly on fact.

Theory of Atheism

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. The proofs of logic within a theory are deduced from premises and achieve certainty only because they are evident in the empirical world. What I mean is that gravity exists because I can observe it through experimentation and without fail, gravity functions logically the same every time. If you do not believe in God it is because you interpreted the facts in that direction and I in the opposing direction.

A theory is plausible only when the probability of that hypothesis is greater based on the available evidence and background information than on the background information alone (this is known as the Bayne calculus). All Atheistic theories are not supported logically by the complete evidence but are constructs of imagination to interpret facts. Case in point, the limited resource argument for extra-terrestrial life has not stopped astrophysicists from fancifully imagining that ET exists against all empirical evidence to the contrary.

Atheism discards much of the evidence before them which in turn eschews their interpretation of the fact. For example, Naturalism, refers to the view that nature is the ultimate substance from which all life and the whole of existence is comprised. Therefore first principles, eternal ideas, souls, spirits, divine reason, supernatural events and afterlife are considered absurdities in their worldview. As an end result, only reason is left, but within the naturalistic worldview, reason is only active because it is a reaction to stimuli or sensations (i.e., firing of neurons, chemical interactions). Would this disregard of principles not be considered a form of bias if it came from anyone other than a scientist?

The fact that humans can have a concept of infinite in a finite universe suggests that we are more than the sum of our parts. Many human emotions such as commitment, loyalty, and love extend human consciousness beyond anything observed in the natural world. Human consciousness is a mystery that has evaded decades of intensive research by neurophysiologists. According to a Wall Street Journal article: “When an organism's neural pathways grow sufficiently complex, materialists insist, their firings are somehow accompanied by consciousness. But despite decades of effort by philosophers and neurophysiologists, no one has been able to come up with a remotely plausible explanation of how this happens--how the hunk of gray meat in our skull gives rise to private Technicolor experience. One distinguished commentator on the mind-body problem, Daniel Dennett, author of Consciousness Explained, has been driven to declare that there is really no such thing as consciousness--we are all zombies, though we're unaware of it.” (Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)

According to Daniel J. Povinelli, from the University of Louisiana's Iberia Research Center humans differ vastly from any so-called related primate: "Humans constantly invoke unobservable phenomena and variables to explain why certain things are happening. Chimps operate in the world of concrete, tangible things that can be seen. The content of their minds is about the observable world."(Tuma, R.S. 2000. Thinking Like a Chimp. HMS Beagle, BioMedNet 90: feature 2, Originally cited at http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/imageofgod.html)

What Povinelli is saying is that humans have the ability for abstract thing, which is unlike any other animal or creature in the natural world. In light of such scientific data, it may be unwise for physicists and evolutionists to discard these supernatural qualities that reside in man as being absurd.

Physicists and evolutionary biologist commonly fall prey to the bias of Empiricism. Empiricism is the philosophical idea that there is no reality beyond what we prove with our senses. This philosophy teaches that the existence of all thought and immaterial existence is for the sole purpose of increase scientific observation. Many use this argument to "prove" that God cannot exist because He cannot be observed or His existence experimented.. But it is logically erroneous to assert that claims of positive truth (that God exists) bear a burden of proof, while claims of negative truth (Atheism) do not require proof.

Pure empiricism denies any learning through vicarious means. As intelligent beings, humans have the ability to learn not just through our observations and personal experiences but vicariously through historical principles. Though I never lived in a country whose government had toppled, I can read about the issues of that country and learn from their mistakes vicariously without having to endure the harsh experiences. This is the process of abstract thinking that cannot be accounted for in the natural world yet is observable through the scientific method.

This form of thinking not only devalues human life and existence but also ignores human life and experience as an evidence of the supernatural cosmological argument. In essence atheism will not allow the human experience to show that the uniqueness of human life in this universe is in itself evidence for the existence of God.