Richard Dawkins, a famous Atheist said: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”(wikipedia). In other words, he’s an Agnostic. Dawkins is also a liberal, and as we all know, liberals love to split hairs when it comes to what words mean. Because he lives his life “on the assumption that he is not there”, he thinks its ok to call himself an Atheist. I would call that assumption a huge mistake. Its sort of like assuming that you can cross a street without looking or playing Russian Roulette with what you assume is an empty gun. If Richard were being honest with himself, he would have to admit he simply prefers to live his life as if there is no God, because believing in God is too restrictive.
God said in the book of Romans (1:20): “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” God is saying (via Paul of Tarsus) that it is obvious that there is a God in spite of the fact that he is invisible to us. There are many things that are invisible to us, such as the wind. We know the wind is real because we can feel it. Atoms are invisible and are an example of many ultra small things that are invisible because of their small size. We know they are real because we can see them with an electon microscope, and we can use mathematics to predict their reaction to certian stimulus. We also know the difference between an accidental action as opposed to a purposeful (by an inteligent actor) action. Accidental action is messy and distructive, and purposeful action is stuctured and constructive. What God is pointing out in Romans 1:20 is that the structured and construtive environment we live in was most certainly the result of purposeful action, and those who deny it are without excuse.
Because the Earth displays purposeful action, it is proof that it is a Creation, and that there is a God. The creation (as we call it) is like a meter that proves the existence of God. An atheist has to deny this reality. In fact, the Atheist HAS to believe in the primorial soup hypothisis, of which there is absolutely NO evidence to support this notion. Atheists like to talk about macro evolultion as proof that the Earth was not “created”, but in actuality, it is illogical to use this as a proof of anything other than how the animals came to be. Abiognenisis, which is what the primordial soup hypothisis is called, is the only logical reason an Atheist can use to say that the Earth existing today could exist without a Creator. So the Atheists assertion that there is no God is based on a hypothisis.
Because you would have to be crazy and illogical to base your world view on a hypothisis, I think that no honest person could ever be a complete Athiest. They always have to have a little Agnostism in them to maintain SOME semblance of intelectual honesty. This is why Richard Dawkins says “I cannot know for certain…”. AND this is why I can say for certain that there is no such thing as an Athiest! God said it best when he said in Psalm 53:1, “The fool said in his heart, there is no God….”.
