Economics as Strong Evidence for the Existence of God.

Economic theory teaches that man has an infinite appetite, and yet man exists in a world of finite resources. The economic theory is stated to account for the condition of man that seems to be a contradiction. For man wants everything, but can only ever have so much. Such an economic theory is strong evidence for God, for only God is the infinite good who can satisfy man's natural appetite for the infinite good.

Economic theory is strong evidence for the existence of God.

An Irony of Unbelief which Affirms Original Sin in Practice but Denies Original Sin in Theory.

The man who is an unbeliever does not believe there is a God, and does not believe Jesus was God, nor does he believe the Catholic church is the one true church instituted by God. But according to the Catholic faith, all men suffer from the wound of ignorance which entails an ignorance of God and God's will for mankind. By the unbeliever not believing in God and God's will as manifested through the Catholic church, the unbeliever is participating in the disorder of original sin as known and taught by God through the Catholic church. 

By participating in the consequences of original sin, the unbeliever is acting in accordance with the truth of the Catholic church which says the following about man, which are all true of unbelievers.

1) Man is ignorant of who God is and what God wants from man.

2) Man is prone to sin and prone to love creatures more than God.

3) Man is prone to suffering and death.

4) Man is prone to unbelief.

The above truths of unbelievers provide the unbeliever with an excuse with regard to not believing in the Catholic faith whilst the unbeliever denies one or more of the truths of the Catholic faith. Because the Catholic faith is the true faith, the existence of many unbelievers is expected and occurs on a regular basis. 

The irony of unbelief is the unbeliever denies the very reality which causes him to be an unbeliever, by denying the wounds of original sin, whilst living with those same wounds on a daily basis. Consequent to the irony, original sin is both a cause for belief as evidence for the one true faith, and a cause for unbelief as an intrinsic wound in all men.

The Problem of Atheism's Negation as the Creator God of Atheism.

Atheism denies the existence of God. And consequently, some atheists hold that the universe came into existence by itself as from nothing. As nothing is a negation of being, a negation is the cause of the universe for the atheist. Contrarily, the theist thinks God, which is infinite being caused the universe to come into existence. Therefore the atheist has equated a negation of being with the infinite being of God. Consequently, the god of atheism is a negation in opposition to an infinite being of theism, but which acts with the same power as an infinite being of theism.

Atheism says a negation created the universe, whilst also holding the position that the infinite being did not create a universe.

The Problem of Atheism's Accounting for Creatures as through the Existence of More Creatures.

Some atheists hold to the existence of a series of creatures to account for the existence of another creature, say a tree stump. For the tree stump exists, but does not necessarily exist and may in fact not exist at all. The atheist is then assuming an insufficiency in the tree stump, and provides a cause for the insufficiency in the tree stump as through other creatures. But because the insufficiency is intrinsic to the nature of creatures, more creatures will never provide a solution to the problem of the insufficiency in creatures, but will only ever make the problem worse. For an empty bucket that must be filled with water cannot be filled with anything else than water. So too a creature that has a lack of an account of being, cannot have an account of being from another creature as the source of the lack of being. For just as only water can provide for the lack of water in the bucket, only being can provide for the lack of being in the creature. 

The being that causes the being of a creature is God and never another creature. For a creature cannot cause being as the being of another creature, but can only act as an extrinsic efficient cause of another creature.

The Problem of Atheism's Inferred God and the Consequent Falsity of Atheism.

The atheist claims there is no god and yet atheism always concludes to theism. For if the atheist claims naturalism, naturalism is the supreme being and therefore god. If naturalism is denied and natures exist as through an infinite regress of causes, the causes are god. If the series is denied the absurdity of natures disconnected from any explanation is god. If the absurdity is denied, the atheist is god. If the atheist is denied, the denial of god by the atheist is god. If the denial of the divinity of the denial is denied, the denial is god and so on. Whenever an atheist asserts or denies anything, a god is always inferred and atheism is always false.

Some Unresolvable Problems with Atheism.

Atheism says there is no God, but monotheism says God is being. Therefore when atheism says there is no God, there is no being. Therefore atheism concludes to non being, which is a negation. there are several consequences to atheism as follows -

1) Atheism concludes to the non being of God who is being. Therefore atheism concludes to the contradiction that non being is being.

2) Atheism concludes to the non being, or the negation of God. But monotheism concludes to God as the supreme being. Atheism then concludes to the negation of the supreme being. Therefore according to atheism, the supreme being is non being.

3) Atheism concludes to the non being of God. But monotheism concludes to God as the universal cause of the being of all creatures. Atheism then concludes to the non being of God as the universal cause of the creatures being. Therefore atheism implies the universal non cause of being of all creatures. Therefore according to atheism, the non being of the non existent God is the universal cause of the being of creatures. Therefore atheism concludes to non being causes being.

4) Atheism concludes to the non-being of God. But the atheist exists and thereby has being. The atheist is then greater than the God of monotheism and the atheist is, therefore, a god unto himself.

5) Atheism concludes to the non-being of God. But monotheism concludes to God as being as the universal cause of being. If atheism is true, then negation is the cause of being. Therefore the universe exists in accord with the principle of something from nothing. As the principle is false, atheism is false.

6) Atheism concludes to the non-being of God. As atheism cannot account for the existence of any creature, atheism can only be possibly true of all that exists is negated. Or in other words, atheism may be true if all is negation. But if all is negation, the truth of atheism is also negated and therefore atheism is false. So if something exists atheism is false, and if all is negated, atheism is false.

7) Atheism concludes to the non-being of God. But creatures and the universe exist. Therefore some creatures are supreme and then a form of polytheism is possibly true, or a creature is supreme and a form of monotheism is possibly true. If anything exists, there is a supreme being and a form of theism is true and atheism is false. As something does exist, atheism is false.

Some Problems when Atheism and Naturalism are Combined.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Naturalism is the belief that there is only nature, and consequently no preter-nature and no super-nature. Some hold to both atheism and naturalism. If so, we have the following problems –

Problem 1) - The Problem of Atheisms Denial and Affirmation of a Supreme Being.

Naturalism says there is only nature. And yet the existence of nature is the existence of something, without anything else existing. Consequent to naturalism, the supreme being is nature itself, or perhaps one or many natural things. But atheism says there is no supreme being, for atheism opposes theism, which says God is the supreme being. So, atheism requires there be no supreme being, and naturalism concludes to nature or natural things, or a natural thing as the supreme being. Atheism quite often affirms the existence of the universe, or at least the man as the knower of the universe, and thereby affirms the existence of at least one natural thing. But by affirming the existence of a natural thing, atheism is affirming the existence of nature. And where nature exists, there is a supreme being.

Conclusion - Atheism denies the existence of a supreme being in opposition to theism. Atheism affirms the existence of a supreme being in affirming naturalism. Therefore atheism both denies and affirms the existence of a supreme being.

Further problems to come in due course. Updated 1 November 2018.

Problem 2) - The Problem of atheism's affirmation of naturalism, evolutionism and the accompanied quasi monism as a form of theism. 

Atheists deny the existence of God and quite often affirm the existence of evolution and naturalism. If evolution is affirmed with naturalism, the universe emerged from only natural causes in accordance with more from less. As there is only one universe, for being is analogous and not equivocal as required of a multi universe worldview, then all that exist is as one tree of existence, whereby all apparently distinct substances are really only one giant substance of the universe. All that exists is really only a small part of the universe and a manifestation of the one universe that is self-contained. But what is self-contained is an organism in which all things live. And the universe as one organism is a form of quasi-monism. And as monism is a form of theism, then quasi monism is also theistic. Therefore if the atheism believes in naturalism and evolutionism, the atheist is a closet quasi-monist and thereby a closet theist.

The Problem of Atheists Simultaneous Affirmation of Something and Nothing as the Sufficient Reason of be for the Existence of Things.

Some atheists hold to the existence of infinite regresses to account for the existence of all finite creatures.

Yet other atheists such as Lawrence Kraus hold to the emergence of the universe as from nothing.

Therefore, atheists simultaneously hold to something and nothing as the sufficient reason of be of creatures.

As nothing is the negation of being and something is being, then atheists simultaneously hold to contradictory reasons as the sufficient reason of be of creatures.

Conclusion - Atheism is a confused amalgamation of contradictions.

The Mystery of Atheism and the Divine Preservation of all Things.

Atheists deny the existence of God, and yet the existence of God is proven through the five ways of St Thomas Aquinas. According to Thomas Aquinas, God is being and the universal cause of being. God is then the cause of being of all atheists, whilst atheists deny the existence of God as the cause of their own being. The divine preservation of atheists is a secret hidden in plain sight from atheists. For atheists know the existence of any creature is a brute fact, which cannot be accounted for when God's existence and universal causation is denied. Yet atheists continue in unbelief in the existence of God as the only cause that can properly account for their ongoing existence from one moment to the next moment.

Atheists are aware of the problem of existence, and are aware of the solution to the same problem, but do not give consent to the solution in God who causes all being. Atheists are then aware of a secret within the universe, which has been revealed to them, but which they cannot resolve. The secret is the mystery of existence without sufficient account given, whilst denying the only proper account of existence in God. Atheism is then at least in part, a modern triple mystery (secret revealed but never fully understood) -

1) The entire universe is unaccounted for within atheism. Therefore within atheism, the universe exists without sufficient reason.

2) As there is no proof for atheism, God as the only solution to the problem of the unaccounted for existence of creatures is denied without sufficient reason within atheism. Therefore atheism exists without sufficient reason.

3) God out of divine love keeps atheists in existence, who are sinning against him as through unbelief, whilst God has no need for atheists at all.

The above three points are all mysteries associated with atheism. For all are known in part but never fully understood.

The Problems of Atheism's Denial of the Universal Prime and Consequent Affirmation of Diverse Secondary Creatures.

Atheism denies the existence of God and theism affirms the existence of God. Monotheism affirms God is being and the universal cause of being. Atheism then denies the existence of being and the universal cause of being. And yet according to ontology, being has modes of one, something, true, good and the beautiful. Therefore, by atheism denying the existence of the prime being which is the universal cause of being, atheism also denies -

1) The prime being and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime being.  The act to be of creatures is the prime act of a creature which cannot be accounted for within atheism. The existence of any creature and all creatures is then reduced to a superstition whereby the creatures has being which has no reason of being within atheism.

2) The prime one and the unity of all creatures as from the prime one. The union of all creatures as through the common act to be is not accounted for due to the denial of the prime being which is the prime unity. By denying the prime unity, atheism then reduces the commonality of being in all creatures to a negation of the prime unity. From atheism's denial of the prime being, the negation of the prime being, which is the same as the negation of the prime unity of being, is then according to atheism, the universal cause of the commonality of all being within creatures. Or more simply, according to atheism, the negation of unity is the universal cause of the common unity of being in all creatures. Or again, negation in the prime is the universal cause of the affirmation of the many common to all creatures. Such a consequent negation and affirmation of the same as a conclusion of atheism is false. 

3) The prime something, and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime something. Atheism denies the existence of the prime something and affirms the secondary creatures as something are not dependent upon the prime. Creatures as the many something(s) are then ultimately dependent upon the negation of the prime, which is a negation of something. Such a consequent negation and affirmation of the same as a conclusion of atheism is false.

4) The prime true and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime true. Atheism denies the existence of the prime true and affirms the secondary creatures as true are not dependent upon the prime. Creatures as the many something(s) are then ultimately dependent upon the negation of the prime, which is a negation of truth. Such a consequent negation and affirmation of the same as a conclusion of atheism is false.

Also if the prime truth is denied, then there is no universal cause of truth acting in all things. Therefore all creatures have unaccounted for truth, which infers creatures are then in some manner always true, for creatures exist and what exists is true. But because the prime truth is denied, the truth of creatures is not accounted for as from the prime being. Then consequent to atheism, creatures are in some manner true, but in another manner superstitious and thereby always false. The universe of atheism is always composed of the two principles within all things of the true and the false.

5) The prime good and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime good. Similar to the argument in point 4 above. All creatures have being and are therefore good. But the goodness of creatures is not accounted for. The universe of creatures is then always of things that are in some way all good, but in another way, always lacking the good, through the unaccounted for being of all creatures.

6) The prime beautiful and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime beautiful. Again, similar to the above arguments. The universe of creatures is then always of things that are in some way all beautiful, but in another way, always lacking the beautiful, through the unaccounted for being of all creatures.

Atheism's denial of the universal prime and the affirmation of the diverse secondary in creatures concludes to a universe that is full of -

1) Creatures that exist without any ontological reason to exist.

2) Creatures that are one according to the commonality of the act to be, yet the act to be is from the negation of the prime one act.

3) Creatures that are things dependent upon the prime negation of a thing.

4) Creatures that are always true, but also always false.

5) Creatures that are good, but also always lack the good and are then evil.

6) Creatures that are beautiful yet the beautiful is from the negation of the prime beautiful.

Conclusion - According to atheism, all creatures that have being, are one, something, true, good and beautiful, are creatures as from a negation of the same in the prime. For, as being is not accounted for in creatures when the prime being is denied, then the one, something, true, good and beautiful are also not accounted for within creatures. The universe of atheism is a universe of one, something, true, good and beautiful as from a negation, or as from nothing. Such a conclusion is false, therefore atheism is false.

A Short Comparison of Atheism and the Christian Understanding of Hell.

Atheism teaches there is no god. According to atheism, men must then live this life without any reference to or engagement with a divine agent. The atheist then lives his life on Earth without God. Christianity teaches a major punishment in hell is the absence of the presence of God. 

Atheism and Christianity may be compared in one manner as follows -

The falsity of atheism requires that man lives his life on Earth without God.
The truth of Christianity requires that men in hell live without God.
Atheism is then a type of Christian hell on Earth.
But as hell on Earth is a life of sin and sin leads to hell, atheism requires that men live a false life of hell on Earth as a preparation for the real Christian version of hell in the next life.

Conclusion - Atheism is a participation in the Christian reality of hell in this life and hell in the next life.

The Problem of Atheism’s denial of the Prime Cause and Affirmation of Secondary Causes.

Monotheism concludes to the uncaused cause is God. Therefore, atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause. But to deny the existence of the prime cause and then affirm the existence of an infinite series of secondary causes is to deny the infinitude of the prime, and affirm the infinitude of the secondary causes. But to both deny and affirm an infinitude of being is to deny theism and affirm a quasi-theism.

Therefore, if atheism affirms the existence of an infinite series of causes, atheism must also affirm a quasi-theism, which is in effect to deny atheism. For quasi theism must equate the infinite being of the uncaused cause with the same infinite being of a series of caused causes. Therefore, atheism must both affirm and deny theism according to the notion of infinite being. Therefore, atheism requires a contradiction. Therefore, atheism is false.

Conclusion - atheism denies the infinite being of the one God, but then assumes an infinite being of many creatures. Atheism is then a closet theism, whereby creatures imitate the one true God of monotheism.

The Problem of Atheism’s Affirmation of Quasi Polytheism when an Infinite Series of Causes is Affirmed.

An infinite series of causes may be affirmed by atheism to deny the existence of the uncaused cause as concluded by monotheism. But to affirm an infinite series to account for the contingent existence of a creature is to affirm many infinite series exist. For many creatures exist, each of which must have an infinite series to account for the creature as an effect of the series.

And each infinite series has an infinite number of causes acting now. Therefore each infinite series has an infinite being, which is a series existing like a god of infinite being. And an infinite series which has infinite being is a quasi god, like that of the real, singular God, who is infinite being. Then a multitude of infinite series is to have a multitude of quasi gods. But to have a multitude of quasi gods, is to hold to quasi polytheism.

Therefore, atheism concludes to quasi polytheism. But quasi polytheism is not atheism, but quasi theism. Therefore, atheism is quasi non theism and quasi theism, and thereby both self-contradictory, and false.

An Irony of Atheism in a Secular, Consumerist Age.

The secular consumerist age that dominates much of the western world is an age of self-seeking, self-gratification, atheistic humanism and commercialism. Such ends of men in the secular culture are made with an assumed atheism. For if atheism is true, then there is no God to be accountable for and no God who can make men happy. Yet if God does exist, then God is the origin of all things, and thereby the cause of all gifts, such as life and men's talents. God is also then the judge and reward of all men. What then is the irony of the secular age? The irony is two-fold.

1) Men seek for self-fulfilment by firstly denying the existence of God, who is the good, but then seeking the good in creatures which cannot provide the good. The atheism assumed in secularism is affirmed but implicitly denied in all of man's seeking of the good. In other words, men firstly assume that which can make them happy does not exist, then assume pursuing that which does not make them happy will make them happy. The human pursuit of the good in creatures is an implicit affirmation of the existence of God as the good, whilst the same God is also denied in secularism.

2) Men cannot prove the non-existence of God and cannot prove the worldview of secularism. For secularism assumes materialism, agnosticism, or atheism, which are all false. Secularism also denies that God has made any revelation to mankind, whereby God has informed man of the way in which he can become fulfilled. Yet both the non-exstence of God, and secularism are assumed to be true within the secular world. Therefore theism, which assumed to be false is, in fact, true and secularism, which is assumed to be true, is in fact false within the secular culture. The secular man then seeks for happiness in every act that is always directed away from his ultimate happiness. In a certain manner the secular age is of a man who claims to be rational, whilst every act he does is at least in some manner irrational. For the secular man seeks for happiness in everything other than that good which alone can make him fulfilled. The secular man is then subject to an ironic self deception. 

The Problem of the Rationalism of Atheism and the Implied Superstitious Irrationality of Atheism.

Atheism denies the existence of God and any divine revelation. Atheism then must deny any truth value to faith and reduce any known truth to that of reason. In short, atheism assumes a rationalist worldview. Atheism presupposes that reason is the normative means by which men come to know the nature of the universe. 

Yet rationalism infers the falsity of anything known through irrational means, such as superstition. For superstition infers the superstitious man believes there is a power in a thing to cause an effect when in fact the power does not exist in the thing. For example, a man may believe the door opens when a man claps his hands. Yet such a belief is superstitious, and therefore irrational, for the clapping of hands does not have the power to cause the door to open.

Then if atheism is superstitious, then atheism is both a rationalist and an irrationalist worldview. But atheism is superstitious, for atheism denies the existence of God, which is being and the universal cause of all being. When the universal cause of being is removed, then the existence of no creature can be properly accounted for and every creature exists as having a power to be from itself, which creatures do not have.

Furthermore, atheism denies the existence of any creator God, which concludes to the self-creation of the universe, along with the false principle of more from less to account for the development of the universe. Both the self-creation and self-development of the universe are reducible to more from less, and something from nothing. And something from nothing is a superstition that nothing, as a negation of being is, in fact, a cause of being.

So in short, atheism implies at least the following superstitions -

1) All creatures exist without any sufficient reason to account for the being of any creature.

2) The universe began as from a negation of being acting as a cause.

3) The universe developed as from a negation of being acting as a cause, according to more from less.

The above three superstitions implied within atheism infer atheists assume atheism is a rationalist position, when in fact atheism is a mindless superstition. Therefore the atheism of the enlightenment and post-enlightenment philosophy is false and those who promote such a worldview are in fact sophists parading as philosophers.

A Theists Resolution to the Problem of God's Existence and the Attributes of God.

Theists prove the existence of God through rational argument. Yet atheists claim God cannot exist because God's attributes cannot be rationally reconciled. For example, it is claimed by atheists that God's justice and mercy, God's knowledge and power, and God's act of Creation and Immutability are all irreconcilable. As such attributes and actions of God are irreconcilable, then God does not exist.

Yet the existence of God is not proved false through the so-called irreconcilable attributes and actions of God. For the proofs for God's existence prove that God exists. Consequently, the problems proposed concerning the irreconcilable nature of God's attributes either -

1) Are problems that are resolvable.

2) Remain as problems that remain unresolved, or only partially resolved.

Yet the unresolved problems only infers unresolved problems with a God that does exist and not unresolved problems with a God that cannot exist. The atheists claim that unresolved problems with the reconciliation of God's attributes concludes to atheism is false. The unresolved problems within theism only conclude to unresolved problems within theism and not atheism. 

The atheist's claims may be highlighted by an example in science. The science academy claims the existence of gravity, and yet nobody knows what gravity is, or how gravity acts within, or on bodies. Such problems with gravity have been explored and some explanations have been offered and yet unresolved problems remain with the notion of gravity. Yet the academy does not, therefore, conclude to the non-existence of gravity. For we observe the effects of gravity, therefore gravity is real as known through the inductive method.

Yet atheism concludes to something similar to the non-existence of gravity when atheists claim the non-existence of God consequent to problems associated with atheism. As theism is proven true deductively, then atheism is never true. As theism is true, then God has all the attributes derived through deductive reasoning regardless of any problems that are associated with God's attributes.

The Problem of Atheism as Caused through Life Experience as Derivable from the Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin.

Atheism asserts there is no god, in opposition to theism. Yet theism is provable, through such proofs as St Thomas Aquinas's five ways. And what is proven, yet opposed, then is not provable in opposition to that which is already proven. Therefore because monotheism is proven, atheism is not proven. Consequently, because atheism is not proven rationally, atheism is embraced by atheists through a means other than rational argument.

That means other than rational argument is life experience which causes the atheist to suffer as a result of human sin. Such sins which cause men to doubt the existence of God as sins against justice and charity. As atheists are human, just like theists are human, atheists hurt as a consequence of life experience which involves sin.

The hurt involved through sin is derived from the truth contained within the Catholic doctrine of original sin. For the consequence of original sin is man finds it easy to sin and thereby cause harm to others. Yet original sin is tied into theism and the free will of man to chose good or evil. Original sin is then a cause of atheism, which is a conclusion of atheists derived from bad life experiences caused by human sin.

The one truth of original sin is then an indirect cause of atheism through the atheist having an incorrect understanding of the nature of sin and the consequences of sin. As atheism is caused by sin, atheism is also a sin.

The Problem of the Atheist's Affirmation of Infinite Regress as the Simultaneous Affirmation of the Infinite and Potency.

Atheists claim infinite regress is permissible to account for the existence of contingent creatures. For the theist argues for God as the prime cause of a creature's being, and in opposition to the theist claim, the atheist will claim the prime being as God does not exist and the creature's existence is better accounted for through the infinite regress of causes. For the atheist, the one prime being as the God of theism is replaced with the many infinite regresses of atheism. By asserting an infinite regress of causes, the atheist is asserting the existence of an infinite being.

Yet by asserting an infinite regress, the atheist is implying within the regress that each member has the same deficiency. And that same deficiency is accounted for through the addition of other causes which delay the provision for the deficiency to an infinite number of causes. Yet because each cause has the same deficiency then the entire series is deficient with the same deficiency. And that deficiency is a lack of being, which is a subjective potency (can be), or that which can be, but does not, in fact, have the act to be.

For the atheist to account for the existence of creatures, he asserts -

1) An infinite being within the series to account for the existence of creatures.

2) A continued potency (can be) within the series to account for the existence of creatures.

The existence of creatures is then accounted for by the atheist as through the combination of an infinite being (the series) and a finite being (potency), which is never an act to be. The combination of infinite and finite being within the series which remains unresolved is a combination that promotes the infinite as acting for the creatures act to be, whilst never providing any sufficient reason for the act to be within any cause in the series. The infinite being of the series is then really only a cover for the unresolved potency within the series, which does not account for the act to be of the creature.

The infinite being is then impotent to cause a finite act to be of the creature. The atheist god, as the infinite series is then an impotent god.

A Problem of Infinite Regress Associated with Atheism.

Infinite regress is proposed by atheists to account for the existence of any contingent substance, such as a tree, or any creature. Such an infinite regress is a series of creatures with a term in the creature but without a beginning. According to regress the number of creatures required to cause one creature is not a number. For an infinite series is not a number, but a series without limit, and therefore without an odd or evenly numbered beginning. Yet the creature caused by the infinite series is an odd number as the prime, and therefore number 1 creature of the series. The next creature in the series is then even and therefore number 2 and so on. 

Every creature in the series can be numbered from the first creature, through the entire series. But to number each member of the series with a known value is to assign a value to every member of the series, which cannot be known in the infinite series. For an infinite series has neither odd nor even number of members and therefore no member of the series has a number.

If we contrast the infinite series to the infinite regress proposed by the atheist, we note a significant difference between the two series.

1) An infinite series is neither odd nor even in any member, for there is no term in the series that is either odd or even. Therefore no member of the series has a known number in relation to every other member of the infinite series.

2) An infinite regress series of creatures with a term in one creature is a numbered series. Therefore every member of the infinite regress is numbered. Yet the infinite regress is without an original creature as the first cause of the infinite series and therefore no member of the series is numbered.

The infinite regress series has a contradiction concerning the numbering of any or every member of the series. In one manner the members have no number, but in another manner, each member of the infinite series has a number. Therefore the same series has every member of the series both numbered and not numbered. Such a series is self-contradictory and therefore impossible.

Conclusion - The infinite regress proposed by the atheist is a series that causes a contradiction. Such a series cannot account for the existence of any creature. Therefore the atheist has not proposed a viable explanation for the existence of any creature.

The other alternatives proposed by atheists also fail, such as the something from nothing argument, and the brute fact argument to account for the existence of creatures. As atheists cannot give a sufficient reason of be for the existence of any creature, atheism is false. For what is irrational cannot explain reality and is always false.

The Reduction of the Value of Human Life to that of a Passing Pleasure in Atheistic Based Arguments for Euthanasia.

Atheists have argued for euthanasia as the means necessary to alleviate human suffering and thereby act in a compassionate manner to be more humane. One premise assumed in the atheistic argument is man's life is ordered towards pleasure and comfort in accord with normal health. Human health is then a good in itself, but health and human life is for the sake of pleasure.  And when pleasure is removed through suffering, the human life becomes unworthy of living and must be resolved by the termination of human life.

The atheist's argument is reducible down to man exists for pleasure, and when pleasure is removed, the reason for existence is removed. Therefore when the reason for existence is removed, man should be removed through euthanasia. The value of man is reduced down to a passing feeling of an emotion. Such a value of man assumes a materialist understanding of man and an associated secular horizontalism concerning reality which excludes any reference to a transcendent God, or life after death.

Contrarily, the value of man in Christianity is far greater than a passing pleasure. For man has an immortal soul and has been created by God to see God in the next life. Man then has a value beyond the secular order of reality and a value in proportion to man's imitation of God and order towards God as the ultimate true good.

Conclusion - The atheist's argument for euthanasia is based upon the false premise of man's fulfilment or order towards only the pleasant good apart from the fitting good of God as the true ultimate end of man. Atheism's false materialist understanding of man does conclude to the avoidance of suffering as the greatest evil in life, and the promotion of euthanasia to avoid suffering. 

Yet because man is not a materialist reality, but a composite of body and soul, suffering is then not the greatest evil in life, but sin is the greatest evil that removes the ultimate end of man as God seen face to face. As euthanasia is objectively gravely disordered, euthanasia is an act that is ordered towards men committing mortal sin and having the true ultimate end removed in the damnation of those who practice such acts.