Am I No More Than A Turtle-Head?

From time to time I am known to enter the irrational world of atheism. It amazes me how often atheists concoct new arguments that refute previous assertions that they’ve already made…this should not be surprising, men suppress the truth of the Triune God and will embrace lies and out-right bondage so as to avoid the easy yoke of Christ.

The most militant form of atheism is also the most easily refuted: Atheistic Materialism.

From this worldview, reality is composed of matter in motion. Reality is "observable", "quantifiable". So absurd is this reductionistic worldview that I’ve come across men who insist that if you cannot “describe” something, it is not a coherent or “positive” ontology.

What is meant by “describing something positively”? I’m glad you asked! It means that you must be able to describe something in terms of physical reality. If it is not defined in terms of a physicalist worldview, it is not “positive”. There are many things glaringly wrong about this strategy that it should be painfully clear to all involved in this sort of a discussion.

Let me give you just two examples, though there are many other ways of dismantling this “argument”.

It Relies On A Fallaciously Circular Argument.
Simply put, when we are discussing ontology, we in the arena of metaphysics. The atheist that is demanding we define God, or our evidence for Him, in terms of a physicalist (i.e. materialist) worldview; he is merely assuming the thing he’s supposed to be arguing. He isn't "proving" anything.

Necessarily, when we discuss something such as God’s ontology, or evidence for His existence, we are discussing reality, which is to say: Metaphysics. The only way the atheist’s standard carries water is if he is first correct about his assumption…but seeing the assumption hasn’t been argued and is the very thing we are supposed to be discussing, he’s done no more than restate his prejudice that he doesn’t believe in the existence of anything spiritually based.

Ontological Monism: Reductio Ad Absurdum:
In asking the Christian to define God (or prove Him) in terms of the physical world he is also saying any ontology must be defined through the physical world.

If this is to be true, how are we to meaningfully define the ontology of humanity? Primarily, we are physical (according to the materialist).

That’s it.

We’re physical.

Cue Olivia Newton-John.

Once the materialist begins classifying (ie differentiating) material objects, he is not able to maintain his materialist standard. How do you get diversity out of oneness?

For atheistic materialists, men are not primarily moral or rational. We are physical. Ontologically speaking, we are no different than a rock, a spider, gum stuck to a shoe, or feces. The absurd outcome of atheistic materialism is ontological monism (“all is one”), which makes differentiation and classification essentially meaningless.

It also destroys value judgements (e.g.: morality). These terms cannot be "meaningfully" defined according to atheistic materialism.

If an atheistic materialist grants that he is an ontological monist (and logically, we’ve already demonstrated this), then how can he say things like pedophilia, necrophilia, or beastiality are wrong? These are value-judgments about relationships between physical objects. Appealing to morality as if it has some inherent authority over matter in motion contradicts the assumed physicalist worldview.

Summing It Up:

A rejection of the Triune God always, absolutely always, results in a destruction of meaning. Christians understand that God is essentially Triune. He is not primarily one, and secondarily three…He is ultimately both. A rejection of the Christian God will result in monism or a pluralism whereby unity can never be achieved. This is the history of the world. The rise and fall of families, of churches, and nations.