Epigraph

We shall show them Our signs in every region of the earth and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord witnesses everything? (Al Quran 41:53)

Can someone who knows that the revelation from your Lord is the Truth be equal to someone who is blind? Only those with understanding will take it to heart. (Al Quran 13:19)

Presented by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

Introduction

Atheism is typically defined as the belief that no deities or divine beings exist – in short, a denial of the existence of God or gods. This worldview claims that reality at its deepest level is purely natural: governed by blind physical processes with no supernatural plan or presence. In an atheist framework, the universe and life are accidental byproducts of matter and energy, without any guiding intelligence behind them. Such a view stands in contrast to theistic worldviews, which posit that a transcendent intelligence (God) underlies existence. A coherent worldview, however, must be able to account for key philosophical and scientific questions about reality – questions of existence (“Why is there something rather than nothing?”), of mind and consciousness, of moral values, of meaning and purpose, and of the apparent order in the universe. As we will see, atheism often struggles to provide satisfying answers to these fundamental questions, leading to significant philosophical and scientific incoherencies in the atheist outlook.

To illustrate the stakes: if atheism is correct, reality is ultimately impersonal and indifferent to human concerns. As outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins bluntly described, the universe from an atheistic perspective has “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” preachingtoday.com

In other words, a consistent atheist reality would be one devoid of any higher meaning, moral absolutes, or intended order. This introduction sets the stage for examining why such a worldview fails to adequately explain the deepest features of our world. In the sections that follow, we will explore four philosophical problems that expose atheism’s incoherence, four scientific lines of evidence that point beyond atheism, and finally compare why a theistic worldview offers a more coherent and comprehensive explanation of reality.

Philosophical Incoherence of Atheism

At its core, atheism faces several philosophical conundrums. A worldview without any transcendent reality finds it difficult – if not impossible – to account for some of the most basic aspects of existence that we intuitively recognize. We will examine four such problems in turn: (1) the problem of existence itself, (2) the problem of consciousness, (3) the problem of objective morality, and (4) the problem of meaning and purpose. Each of these areas raises questions that an atheistic, purely materialistic outlook struggles to answer in a coherent way.

The Problem of Existence

Why is there something rather than nothing? This age-old question points to the contingency of the universe – everything we see around us exists, but it seems it might just as well not have existed. Any satisfying worldview should offer an explanation for why anything (the universe, life, reality itself) exists at all. Atheism, which denies any eternal creator or necessary being, has a hard time providing such an explanation. If there is no God, one must essentially say the universe exists “without any explanation”, as a brute fact. Indeed, many atheists concede that ultimately “the universe just exists inexplicably” on atheism​. In philosopher William Lane Craig’s analysis of the “contingency argument,” atheism implies that the universe has no reason for its existence – it simply is, and that’s the end of the matter​ reasonablefaith.org. This stance is intellectually dissatisfying, because everywhere within the universe we seek explanations (for example, we explain particular events by prior causes). To then exempt the universe as a whole from explanation (“it just is”) seems to violate the principle of sufficient reason – the intuitive notion that things exist for a reason or cause.

If everything in reality is contingent (could either exist or not exist), then it feels arbitrary that the cosmos exists at all. Atheism must hold that either the universe is the one exception that exists without cause, or that some self-contained eternal physical state preceded the Big Bang. Both options raise further difficulties: saying the universe “has no explanation of its existence” undermines the rationality of why there is a universe in the first place, and proposing an eternal physical cosmos runs into scientific evidence of a beginning (which we will address later). In short, atheism lacks a sufficient reason for existence itself. It struggles to answer why there is something rather than nothing – why reality isn’t an eternal void. By contrast, a coherent worldview would posit a self-existent source or necessary being that explains the existence of everything else (we will revisit this in the theism section). The atheist, however, is left with an uncomfortable brute fact: the universe exists just because, with no deeper explanation – a position that many find philosophically incoherent.

The Problem of Consciousness

Closely related to the question of existence is the mystery of consciousness. Human beings (and presumably some animals) have inner subjective experiences – we perceive colors and sounds, feel pain and joy, and possess self-awareness. We also experience ourselves as having minds that can reason and wills that make choices. How can an atheist, purely material universe account for the reality of conscious minds? This is often referred to as the “mind-body problem” or specifically the “hard problem of consciousness” – the difficulty of explaining subjective experience in terms of physical processes. In an atheistic worldview, typically tied to materialism, mind is reduced to matter; our thoughts and feelings must somehow emerge from neurons firing in the brain, which in turn are just complex arrangements of atoms. But mere matter and energy, described by physics and chemistry, seem fundamentally unequipped to produce first-person awareness. One could know every physical fact about the brain and still not see why those processes feel like something from the inside (for example, why the processing of light in the brain results in the experience of seeing red). Consciousness has a qualitative, subjective character (often called qualia) that doesn’t neatly map onto equations or neuronal signals.

Many philosophers and scientists acknowledge that consciousness poses a severe challenge to strict naturalism. The atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel famously wrote that “Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science.” He notes that the very existence of subjective mind “threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture” if taken seriously​ conversantfaith.com. In other words, if our universe were nothing but matter, the fact that mind and awareness have arisen is profoundly perplexing. Some staunch materialists have even tried to deny the reality of consciousness or free will – suggesting that our sense of self is an illusion generated by brain chemistry – because these things fit so poorly into an atheistic framework. For example, under an atheistic, deterministic view, our decisions would be wholly determined by prior physical causes (or randomness), which means genuine free will would not exist. Notably, some atheist thinkers like Sam Harris do indeed argue that free will is an illusion, given that on materialism our brains are just biochemical engines following the laws of physics. But if free will and even consciousness itself are illusions, one ends up in a self-defeating position: how can we trust our reasoning or any of our thoughts, if they are just mindless physical processes? The very tools we use to seek truth (logic, reason, introspection) presuppose that our minds are more than random neuron firings. Thus, atheism is philosophically incoherent when it comes to explaining consciousness – it either hand-waves the problem, attempts to wish away our immediate experience of having minds, or is left mystified by it. A more coherent view would be one in which mind is a fundamental feature of reality, not an accidental byproduct (again, something theism naturally provides, as we will see).

The Problem of Objective Morality

Human beings everywhere exhibit moral instincts – a sense that certain things are right or wrong, good or evil. We make ethical judgments and often feel that some moral principles (like “murdering innocent people is wrong”) are not merely personal preferences but objectively true. A key question is: on what basis do moral values and duties exist? In an atheistic universe, it’s difficult to justify any objective moral standard. If there is no God – no higher moral lawgiver or transcendent Good – then morality has no firm foundation outside of human opinion or societal convention. Right and wrong would be essentially human inventions or evolutionary instincts with no existence beyond what we collectively decide. This leads to the unsettling implication that, under atheism, morality is ultimately subjective and arbitrary. Different societies or individuals could have completely different moral codes, and there would be no objective fact of the matter about which is “correct.”

Atheists have proposed that morality can be based on evolution (behaviors that promoted survival became ingrained as “moral sentiments”) or on logical agreements within societies. While these explanations can account for why we feel certain moral impulses, they do not actually ground the truth of moral claims. For instance, evolution might program us to feel altruism toward kin because it helps our genes, but that doesn’t make altruism objectively right – it just makes it biologically useful. An evolutionist and philosopher, Michael Ruse, frankly admitted that on atheism, morality is not an objective truth at all, but a convenient illusion. Ruse writes that morality is basically a trick played on us by our genes: “Human beings function better if they are deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a disinterested objective morality… ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.” af4.cf3.mwp.accessdomain.com

According to this view, when we say “stealing is wrong,” we aren’t referring to a true moral fact, since our belief in objective right and wrong “has an evolutionary basis but no metaphysical basis.”​

In an atheistic world, nature itself is indifferent to values – there is no ultimate “good” or “evil,” only what we humans happen to value.

The incoherence here is that we do perceive some moral values as real and binding. Even atheists often act as if things like justice or human rights have genuine validity (not just personal taste). If someone claims “murdering children for fun is just as morally acceptable as helping the poor” most of us recoil – we don’t treat that as a mere difference of opinion; we consider it objectively false. Yet atheism cannot adequately explain where any objective moral truth would come from. It reduces moral norms to either personal preference or socio-biological conditioning, leaving no room for a transcendent moral law. This leads to moral relativism or nihilism: if there’s no objective standard, ultimately “anything goes” (as long as you can get away with it). Fyodor Dostoevsky captured this implication in the famous line, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Without a higher moral authority, nothing is inherently prohibited or obligatory – a deeply troubling conclusion. Thus, atheism shows a fissure in the realm of ethics: it forces us to regard our deepest moral convictions as either illusions or purely subjective rules of convenience. A coherent worldview, by contrast, would provide an objective grounding for morality, so that our moral experiences of obligation and conscience aren’t just flukes of evolution but correspond to something real (we will see how theism does exactly that).

The Problem of Meaning and Purpose

Finally, we come to the question of meaning and purpose. Humans naturally search for meaning in life – we wonder if our lives have a purpose, if the universe has a story or goal, or if there is any ultimate point to our existence. Under atheism, the answer to these questions is bleak: there is no ultimate meaning or purpose built into the universe. If reality is nothing but matter in motion, originating in a cosmic accident and destined for eventual decay, then any sense of purpose is confined to the small scale of human subjectivity. Individuals can certainly choose goals or “purposes” for themselves (such as seeking happiness, knowledge, or the betterment of society), but these are self-assigned purposes, not an overarching reason why we exist. The universe, from an atheist perspective, doesn’t care – it has no intention or goal. Renowned atheist thinkers have acknowledged this. Biologist Richard Dawkins, as quoted earlier, said there is “no purpose” in the universe at bottom​. Another atheist, philosopher William Provine, summarized the implications of a godless world in stark terms: “There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind… There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” evolutionnews.org If atheism is true, then our lives have no more ultimate meaning than that of an insect or a rock – we are products of chance, and when we die our consciousness is extinguished, with no higher story or end goal to the cosmos.

This view often leads to nihilism or existential despair – the sense that life is ultimately meaningless. Some atheist existentialists, like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, grappled with this by suggesting that we must create our own subjective meaning in the face of an indifferent universe. Camus famously said we must imagine Sisyphus (the mythical figure condemned to push a boulder up a hill forever) to be happy – an admission that, objectively, the task is meaningless, but one could subjectively embrace it. However, the need to invent meaning only underlines the fact that atheism itself provides none. Any meaning we create is fleeting and personal; it doesn’t change the fact that in a billion years, nothing we ever did will have mattered to an unconscious cosmos. The contrast with a theistic worldview is enormous: if there is a God, then it’s possible that life has an intended purpose, that the universe’s story is going somewhere, and that our lives can partake in a larger meaning ordained by that Creator. Under atheism, all such hopes are illusory. The human yearning for meaning finds no satisfaction in a purely atheistic outlook – at best, one can distract oneself with projects and pleasures, but any ultimate purpose is absent. This existential void is another facet of atheism’s philosophical incoherence: it fails to answer the heart’s desire for meaning that seems almost universal to humanity. If our desire for meaning is itself just an evolutionary quirk with no fulfillment, that would be a strange outcome – like a hunger with no food to satisfy it. In sum, atheism leads to a worldview where love, beauty, morality, and purpose are all human constructs sitting atop an uncaring material world. Such a worldview can easily collapse into nihilism, the belief that nothing really matters.

Having examined these philosophical problems – existence, consciousness, morality, and meaning – we see a pattern: atheism tends to either deny the reality of the phenomenon (e.g. “free will is an illusion,” “morality is just subjective”) or leave it unexplained (“the universe exists for no reason; life has no purpose”). This undermines the coherence and livability of the atheist worldview. We will next turn to scientific considerations, which further compound the case that atheism struggles to account for the nature of reality.

Scientific Incoherence of Atheism

In addition to philosophy, developments in science have presented serious challenges for a purely atheistic understanding of reality. Ironically, many of these scientific discoveries – in cosmology, physics, and biology – were at first hailed as triumphs of natural explanation, yet upon closer examination they raise deeper questions that point beyond a universe of unguided randomness. We will discuss four areas where science uncovers facts that fit awkwardly with atheism but align more readily with the idea of a designed or created cosmos: (1) the fine-tuning of the universe, (2) the origins of the universe itself, (3) the presence of irreducibly complex systems in biology, and (4) the mathematical laws and informational structure underpinning nature. Each of these suggests an aspect of intentionality or design that a purely materialistic worldview struggles to account for.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Modern physics has revealed that the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge. The fundamental constants and initial conditions of the cosmos are extraordinarily fine-tuned to allow the existence of complex matter, stars, planets, and ultimately life. For example, values like the strength of gravity, the charge of the electron, the cosmological constant, and dozens of other parameters appear to be precisely set in a narrow range. If any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be sterile – no stars would form, or atoms would not hold together, or the universe would have collapsed or expanded too fast for galaxies to form. Scientists have been “quietly collecting examples of all too convenient ‘coincidences’” in these laws of nature that seem necessary for life​. This remarkable fine-tuning has not gone unnoticed. Astrophysicist Paul Davies wrote that “the universe looks suspiciously like a fix”, noting that many aspects of physics seem tailor-made for life, and he quotes the famous remark of cosmologist Fred Hoyle that it was “as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics.”​

Indeed, a commonsense interpretation of this discovery is that the universe was intentionally set up – designed – to permit life to emerge. The odds of all necessary parameters randomly falling into the life-permitting range by chance are astronomically low, leading some scientists to use analogies like “winning a million lotteries in a row” to describe it.

Atheism, which by definition rejects any cosmic Designer, faces a dilemma with fine-tuning. One response has been to hypothesize a multiverse – perhaps an enormous (possibly infinite) collection of universes with varying constants, so that by sheer statistics, a few will by chance have the right values and we just happen to live in one of those lucky universes. While the multiverse idea is speculative and unconfirmed, it is essentially an attempt to avoid the clear appearance of design by multiplying chances. Without a multiverse, atheists are left with the uncomfortable suggestion that we just got fantastically lucky – which doesn’t feel like a satisfying explanation at all. The reality of fine-tuning is well-established in physics; the question is whether it is best explained by chance or design. Given the incredible precision involved, the fine-tuning of the universe sits more coherently with the idea of a deliberate Fine-Tuner (a Creator who calibrated the cosmos), rather than with the atheistic expectation of a random, unguided universe. As one scientist quipped, it’s as though the universe “knew we were coming.” In summary, the fine-tuning evidence makes an atheistic worldview strain credulity – the simplest coherent explanation for this “Goldilocks” universe is that it was intended to be that way by some intelligent agency.

The Origins of the Universe

For a long time, atheists could comfort themselves with the idea that the universe might be eternal and self-existent – that it had no beginning and thus needed no cause. This notion was undermined in the 20th century by the advent of the Big Bang theory, which provides strong evidence that the universe did have a beginning in time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. According to Big Bang cosmology, space, time, matter, and energy all came into existence from an initial singularity (often described as a state of infinite density) and have been expanding and evolving ever since. This scientific conclusion – “In the beginning, there was a Big Bang” – is deeply awkward for atheism, because it sounds eerily like the universe coming into being from nothing. If before the Big Bang there was no space and no time, then the origin of the universe transcends physical explanation. All physical causality as we know it exists inside time and space; if time itself began, one cannot have a prior physical cause in the normal sense. The logical implication is that the cause of the universe (if it has one) must be something beyond physical reality – which starts to sound a lot like a metaphysical or divine cause (a Creator).

Naturally, atheists have sought ways around this. Some have proposed that perhaps the universe can indeed come from “nothing” via quantum fluctuations – though on inspection, those quantum models still presuppose a quantum vacuum governed by laws, which is not actually “nothing.” Others have suggested cyclic or oscillating universe models, or other exotic cosmologies, to try to evade a true beginning. However, the consensus of modern cosmology remains that our observable universe had a definite beginning. In fact, a famous result known as the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (2003) shows that any universe on average expanding (like ours) cannot be past-eternal; it must have an initial boundary in time. Alexander Vilenkin, one of the authors of that theorem, stated: “Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” apologetics315.com

This “problem” is really only a problem for those who wish to avoid a creation event. If atheism is true, one has to assume either (a) the universe popped into existence uncaused from nothing – a proposition many find absurd – or (b) some as-yet-unknown natural cause exists outside our universe (which starts to sound like invoking a larger multiverse or something equally speculative). Either way, atheism struggles with scientific incoherence regarding the origin: it must posit highly unorthodox scenarios to avoid what looks like a creation. By contrast, if one allows for the possibility of God, the beginning of the universe is not incoherent at all – it fits the idea that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The Big Bang can be seen as the moment of creation, when a transcendent cause brought the universe into being. Thus, the scientific fact of a cosmic beginning points strongly away from the comfortable atheist notion of an eternal, self-sustaining material reality, and toward the need for a cause beyond matter.

Irreducible Complexity in Biology

Ever since Charles Darwin, atheists have often argued that biology is well-explained by unguided evolution, leaving no need for a Creator to account for the design of living things. Certainly, natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a great deal of biological complexity. Yet, even in biology, there appear to be limits or challenges to what blind evolution can achieve, especially when it comes to systems that exhibit irreducible complexity. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple interdependent parts, where the removal of any one part causes the whole system to cease functioning. The classic simple analogy is a mousetrap: it needs all its pieces (base, spring, hammer, catch, etc.) to work. If you remove one piece, you no longer catch any mice – the trap doesn’t half-work, it doesn’t work at all. Some biochemists and proponents of Intelligent Design (like Michael Behe) have pointed out that certain cellular machines and biochemical pathways have this same property. For example, the bacterial flagellum – a microscopic rotary motor that bacteria use to swim – is composed of dozens of proteins forming a motor, rotor, stator, and propeller. Take away any one of those protein components and the flagellum doesn’t just spin slower; it fails to assemble or function at all. How could something like this evolve gradually via Darwinian steps, if intermediate stages (missing some parts) confer no advantage (i.e. a partial flagellum that doesn’t rotate is useless to the bacterium)? Darwin himself acknowledged this potential Achilles’ heel of his theory. In On the Origin of Species he wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”​

This statement concedes that irreducibly complex organs would refute unguided evolution – Darwin just believed no such organ would be found. Critics of atheistic evolution argue that now, in the age of microbiology, we have found such cases in the cell’s tiny machines and circuits.

While the scientific community continues to debate these claims (many biologists believe that indirect evolutionary pathways or co-option of parts could explain flagella and other systems), the fact remains that certain features of life strongly look designed. They have a purposeful arrangement of parts achieving a function – much like human-designed machines. Atheism insists this is only apparent design, the result of random mutations filtered by natural selection. But the deeper biologists delve, the more complex and information-rich life appears, and the more strained it becomes to say it all arose by mindless processes. Even staunch atheists occasionally admit to this unease. Notably, Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) once cautioned that biologists must keep reminding themselves that what they see was not designed – because it so thoroughly looks designed at first glance. The concept of irreducible complexity underscores that some biological systems defy easy step-by-step evolutionary explanations, bordering on “incoherent” under strict Darwinism. If one is committed to atheism, one must assume that a pathway exists for evolution to build these intricate systems, even if we haven’t figured it out. But this starts to sound like an article of faith. On the other hand, if one is open to the idea of a guiding intelligence, then these features are not puzzling at all – they are exactly what we would expect if life were the product of design. In summary, while evolution explains a great deal, the design-like features of life – especially irreducibly complex structures – present a scientific challenge for atheism, one that is still unresolved and points toward the possibility of intentional design in biology.

The Laws of Nature and the Information in the Universe

Another scientific (and philosophical) marvel of our world is that it is governed by orderly laws and that it contains complex information. The universe operates according to elegant mathematical laws of nature – from gravity to electromagnetism to quantum mechanics. These laws can be described in the language of mathematics with extreme precision. Albert Einstein once remarked, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” Why should the cosmos obey simple mathematical principles that our minds can grasp? In an atheistic worldview, this might just be a happy accident – we evolved in this universe, so of course we find it appears orderly to us. But that doesn’t actually explain why the order is there in the first place. The effectiveness of mathematics in describing physics is striking; physicist Eugene Wigner called it “a miracle” and “a wonderful gift” that we “neither understand nor deserve” mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk. If the universe at base were chaos, we wouldn’t have consistent laws to study. Yet it behaves as if it’s been programmed with a consistent rule set. This suggests an intelligent order-giver behind the order. After all, in our common experience, order and rational laws usually stem from a rational mind (for example, the order in a computer program comes from a programmer). Atheism lacks an explanation for why the fabric of reality is imbued with mathematical structure – it simply has to accept it as a brute fact. But this again feels incoherent: why should unconscious matter, by itself, generate laws of such coherence that give rise to galaxies, planets, and eventually conscious beings capable of understanding those laws? It’s as if the universe wanted to be understood – a notion hard to make sense of under pure materialism.

Closely related is the presence of information in the universe, particularly in living systems. The most famous example is DNA, the molecule of heredity. DNA stores information using a chemical code (sequences of nucleotides abbreviated as A, T, C, G – analogous to letters). This code contains the instructions for building proteins and regulating biology, essentially the blueprint of life. It has been compared to software or a written language. In fact, technologist Bill Gates once noted that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” goodreads.com

Such high-density, functional information is mind-boggling to attribute to random chance. To get a sense of the challenge: the human genome has over 3 billion “letters” in a precise order; even simpler organisms have DNA codes that perform highly complex functions. In all our experience, information – especially code or language – always originates from an intelligent source. We never see meaningful information arise spontaneously from chaos (for example, a random spill of ink does not produce a Shakespeare sonnet). Yet atheism asks us to believe that the largest information system we know (genetic code) wrote itself through undirected processes. The field of information theory tells us that unguided processes tend toward increasing entropy (disorder), not toward creating information-rich systems, except in very limited cases. The origin of life itself, which would have required a vast increase in ordered information (to go from non-living chemicals to a functioning self-replicating cell), remains an unsolved mystery that naturalistic theories have yet to crack. Every proposed natural mechanism falls dramatically short of accounting for the information explosion needed.

The coherence problem for atheism here is dual: why does nature have discoverable, law-like order, and why does nature contain high-level information (like DNA) at all? These features strongly imply mind. The laws of physics seem finely tuned and formulated in a mathematical manner, as if set by a Mathematician. Biological information mirrors the kind of creative intelligence we attribute to minds. If one is committed to a worldview with no Intelligence behind the universe, one has to say, essentially, “Well, it just turned out that way by chance.” But piling on one improbable “just so” story after another (the universe just happens to be ordered, life just happens to generate coded information, consciousness just happens to emerge, etc.) starts to look like a series of coincidences too great to believe. Scientifically, it is more coherent to think these coincidences are not coincidences at all, but the result of intention. Theism straightforwardly claims that in the beginning was Intelligence (logos, in philosophical terms), and that this intelligent cause imparted order and information to the world. Atheism has to treat these crucial features as flukes, without ultimate explanation – a position that many scientists and philosophers find unsatisfactory and incomplete.

Having reviewed both philosophical and scientific challenges, we see that atheism as a worldview has significant explanatory gaps. It leaves us with a universe that, at its foundations, has no reason, no mind, no morality, no purpose – yet somehow produces beings (us) who demand reason, mind, morality, and purpose. This internal tension makes strict atheism a less coherent worldview when measured against the full scope of reality we encounter. In the next section, we will compare how theism (belief in God) provides a more unified and intelligible framework that addresses these same questions in a satisfying way.

Comparative Discussion: Why Theism Is More Coherent

If atheism struggles to coherently explain existence, consciousness, morality, meaning, and cosmic order, does a theistic worldview fare better? The answer, many philosophers and theologians argue, is yes – theism provides a robust explanatory framework that naturally accounts for those fundamental aspects of reality. Theism is the belief that an eternal, transcendent, intelligent being (God) is the ground of all existence and the source of order and value in the universe. By positing God, theism offers solutions to the very problems that plague atheism. Let’s revisit each problem area and see how the God hypothesis brings coherence and understanding:

Theism Provides a Rational Foundation for Existence

Where atheism cannot explain why anything exists, theism posits that reality exists because it was caused or created by a necessary, self-existent being – God. In classical philosophical terms, God is the uncaused cause or the necessary being who carries within Himself the reason for His existence (unlike the contingent universe which does not). This means that existence is ultimately grounded in something that must exist and cannot not exist. With God in the picture, it is no longer true that the universe exists “inexplicably.” Rather, the universe exists because God chose to create it or because it flows necessarily from God’s nature. The chain of explanation doesn’t trail off into absurdity; it culminates in an ultimate creative mind. Recall the contingency argument mentioned earlier: everything that exists contingently needs an explanation, and if the universe (all contingent reality) has an explanation, it must be something beyond the universe. Theists identify that “something” as God, and as Craig succinctly noted, the explanation of the universe’s existence is found in “a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.” reasonablefaith.org

This makes coherent sense – a mind can choose to create, and a necessary mind would exist eternally, providing a continuous explanation for why anything (rather than nothing) is there. In theism, existence is no longer a brute fact; it is the result of an intentional act of being by a Creator.

Furthermore, God as the foundation of reality means that the existence of logic and reason themselves can be anchored in God’s rational nature. We find ourselves in a universe where the existence of something (rather than nothing) and the applicability of reason are natural outcomes if a rational God made a world. The famous principle from the Bible – “In the beginning was the Word (Logos)” – conveys that rationality and being have a common source. Thus, theism elegantly answers the question of existence: the universe exists because a necessary being (God) exists and brought it into being. This is a clear and coherent stopping point for the “why” question, far more satisfying than the atheistic “it just is.” One might object, “Then who made God?” – but by definition, God in classical theism is unmade and eternal, the one thing that doesn’t need making. If one accepts that something must be eternal (either God or an eternal universe), the evidence we’ve seen (like the Big Bang) leans strongly toward that eternal something being an immaterial Creator rather than the material universe itself. Thus, theism provides a firm ontological foundation for existence – reality is grounded in God’s being.

Theism Accounts for Consciousness

If atheism has trouble explaining mind and consciousness, theism turns the problem on its head: rather than mind emerging inexplicably from matter, matter originates from Mind. In other words, theism is inherently mind-centric – it claims that a supreme Mind (God) existed before and outside the material universe, and that our minds are in some sense products of that greater Mind. This immediately makes the existence of consciousness far less mysterious: consciousness exists in the universe because the source of the universe is conscious. God is often conceived as a being with intellect and will – essentially a mind. When God creates human beings (whether through direct creation or through guided evolution), He imbues them with a spark of His own mind, which explains why we have subjective experience and rationality. On theism, it is completely expected that there are immaterial aspects to reality (like mind, soul, or spirit), since ultimate reality itself (God) is immaterial and conscious. Thus, our subjective inner life is not an anomaly, but a reflection (however finite) of the ultimate nature of existence.

This perspective aligns with insights by some physicists and philosophers who suggest that consciousness might be a fundamental feature of the universe, not a late-emerging accident. Sir James Jeans, a British astronomer, observed that “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” afterall.net

In theism, indeed, an infinite Mind (God) is the creator and governor of matter, literally giving primacy to consciousness in the fabric of reality. This means that things like free will also make sense – if our minds are more than matter (for instance, if we have souls or if our consciousness is at least partly non-physical), then we are not strictly bound by deterministic physical laws in the way inanimate objects are. We truly can make choices. Moral and rational responsibility thus remain intact, since our decisions flow from a real agentive self (the soul or mind) that is not reducible to atomic interactions. Our ability to reason reliably can also be trusted more, since on theism our cognitive faculties ultimately come from a rational deity (who made our minds to grasp truth), rather than from blind evolution which cares only about survival. In sum, theism integrates mind into the cosmic picture from the start, thereby avoiding the contortions atheism goes through to explain (or explain away) consciousness. In a theistic worldview, it is coherent that Mind precedes matter – “In the beginning was the Mind,” so to speak – and thus it is no surprise that minds exist within the universe now.

Theism Offers a Ground for Objective Morality

The existence of real, objective moral values and duties fits hand-in-glove with a theistic worldview. If God is real, particularly the kind of God conceived by classical theism (all-good, holy, just, loving), then moral truths have an absolute foundation. In simple terms, God’s nature provides the standard of goodness, and God’s will can communicate moral law to us. Under theism, “good” is not an arbitrary concept – it is anchored in who God is. For example, if God’s character is perfectly good, then things that align with God’s character (such as love, justice, honesty) are objectively good, while things contrary to His character (such as hate, cruelty, deceit) are objectively evil. Moral duties (obligations to do good or avoid evil) make sense because God, as a supreme lawgiver, has the authority to command and instill conscience in us. This means that even if humans had never evolved or even if societies disagree, moral facts would still be true (e.g. cruelty would still be wrong) because they are rooted in God’s eternal character and not merely in human opinion.

Thus, with theism, one can coherently say “murder is wrong” and mean it in an ultimate sense – because it violates the command of a just Creator and the value of human life made in God’s image. Morality is no longer an illusion or subjective consensus; it is real and binding. This view is exemplified in many religious and philosophical traditions. For instance, in Judeo-Christian thought, the Moral Law (such as the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule) is seen as stemming from God. Even non-religious people who believe in objective ethics are, perhaps unknowingly, leaning on a theistic underpinning (since, as we saw, atheism struggles to justify such ethics). As Sartre and Dostoevsky noted from the atheistic side, without God everything is permitted – conversely, with God in the picture, not everything is permitted, because real moral law exists.

Importantly, theism also gives hope for ultimate justice, which under atheism is hard to come by. If there is a God, then wrongdoers who escape justice in this life may face it in the next, and those who suffer innocently can be recompensed. This isn’t to stray from philosophy into theology too far, but it shows the coherence of the moral aspect: theism not only explains why we ought to behave morally (because a righteous God created us with that purpose) but also why doing good is ultimately meaningful (it aligns with the eternal Good and is noticed by God). In a theistic universe, virtue and vice have real significance – goodness reflects the nature of God, and evil is a departure from that, destined to be overcome. Thus, the profound human conviction that some things are truly right or wrong is validated and grounded by theism. Far from being arbitrary rules, morals become woven into the very structure of reality, with God as the moral lawgiver. This makes the theistic worldview ethically coherent, where the atheist worldview was forced into relativism or nihilism.

Theism Explains the Order and Design of the Universe

The sense of wonder we have at the ordered cosmos – the intricate laws of physics, the beauty of the stars, the complex functionality in biology – finds a natural explanation in theism: God designed the cosmos with intention and purpose. All the evidences of fine-tuning and design that put atheists on the defensive become positive evidence for theism. Rather than shrugging off the unlikely precision of nature’s constants as a fluke, theism says that an intelligent Creator set those constants deliberately so that a life-permitting, coherent universe could result. The exquisite architecture of the atom or the solar system is not a random accident, but the work of a rational mind. In Sir Isaac Newton’s words, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” goodreads.com

Newton and many other founders of modern science (Kepler, Galileo, etc.) were devout theists who explicitly believed that the universe’s orderliness was a product of divine design. This conviction didn’t hinder science – in fact, it inspired it. Because they saw the universe as the creation of a rational God, they assumed it would operate by orderly laws (the “laws of nature”) that could be discovered and understood. In other words, theism provided the philosophical foundation for why science is even possible: the world is intelligible because a supreme Intelligence made it.

When we encounter the fine-tuning of physical laws, theism straightforwardly explains it: God “fine-tuned” the universe on purpose so that it would be capable of supporting life, including human life with whom God could have a relationship. This is a far more coherent explanation than blind chance producing a one-in-a-billion perfect set of conditions. Similarly, the intricate “machine-like” designs in biology (from DNA’s information code to molecular motors in cells) are coherently explained by theism as the result of an intelligent Designer (God). This doesn’t necessarily specify how God implemented the design (it could be through guided evolution or other means), but it assures that there is an underlying plan, not merely random mutation. Theism unifies the appearance of design with actual design: we see order and complexity in nature because God designed nature to be orderly and complex. This extends to human faculties as well – our ability to reason, to do mathematics, to appreciate beauty – these are seen as gifts from a Creator who himself possesses reason and beauty, rather than inexplicable byproducts of survival mechanisms. The mathematical structure of the laws is sensible because God is often described as having a rational mind (perhaps the laws reflect God’s logical decree or even the “mind of God” as some physicists poetically say). The information in DNA is not surprising either, since we routinely associate information with intelligence – if God is the ultimate source of biological life, the presence of a genetic code is exactly what we’d expect (God essentially programming life).

In theism, nothing that we observe and puzzle over is truly “inexplicable” – it all flows from the intentions and nature of God. There is a cosmic story, an author behind the story, and meaningful roles for the characters (us). The coherence here is that everything connects: the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning, the rise of conscious, moral beings, the pervasive order and intelligibility – all are pieces that fit into the jigsaw puzzle once you put God in the picture. Without God, those pieces looked random or forced; with God, a beautiful picture emerges.

Conclusion

We have surveyed a range of philosophical and scientific considerations and found that atheism is often unable to give satisfying, coherent answers to the deepest questions posed by reality. Philosophically, atheism falters on the question of existence (offering no reason for why anything exists), stumbles on explaining consciousness and free will (reducing minds to matter and thereby undermining reason and agency), falls short on grounding morality (rendering right and wrong as subjective constructs with no ultimate validity), and leads to an empty view of meaning and purpose (human life and the universe are seen as accidents with no overarching point). Scientifically, atheism faces the improbability of a finely-tuned cosmos that looks intentionally calibrated, the evidence that the universe had a beginning (hinting at a cause beyond nature), the presence of design-like complexity in biology that defies simple gradualist explanation, and the fact that nature is governed by elegant laws and contains complex information – features that strongly indicate a guiding intelligence. In each of these areas, when we tried to interpret the evidence under atheism, we ran into contradictions or mysteries that atheism simply asks us to accept without explanation. This patchwork of ad hoc answers makes atheism an incoherent worldview when taken as a whole – it fails to connect the dots of reality in a logical, believable way.

On the flip side, theism provides a superior explanatory framework that elegantly addresses these same facets of existence. By positing God – an eternal, conscious, purposeful, and good being – as the foundation of reality, theism can explain why something exists (because a necessary Creator exists), why we have minds (because the Creator is mind and made us in His image), why moral values are real (because they stem from the Creator’s nature and commands), why life has meaning (because the Creator imbued it with purpose and perhaps an ultimate destiny), why the universe is ordered (because it was intelligently designed), and why we find information and fine-tuning in nature (because the Creator put them there deliberately). In each case, theism integrates the phenomena into a coherent narrative: the universe is a creation, life is not an accident, our consciousness links to a greater Consciousness, and our moral striving connects to a Moral Lawgiver. Theism does not conflict with science; rather, it complements science by answering the “Why” questions that science by itself is not equipped to tackle. In fact, many of the scientific discoveries that challenge atheism (like the Big Bang or the delicate constants of physics) were anticipated, in a general sense, by theistic philosophies that held the universe to be a finite creation ordered by God.

In conclusion, when we weigh the totality of the evidence – logical, moral, experiential, and empirical – we find that atheism leaves too many loose ends, too many profound realities unexplained or explained away. It paints a picture of the world that doesn’t fully align with what we know and experience (a world with deep intelligibility, beauty, moral significance, and personal consciousness). Theism, on the other hand, ties these threads together into a tapestry that is intellectually and existentially satisfying. It is a worldview wherein everything has its place: physical reality stems from a metaphysical source, and the features of our universe and human nature are intended, not accidental. Thus, theism emerges as a more coherent worldview than atheism, both philosophically and scientifically. It not only avoids the pitfalls of atheistic nihilism and reductionism, but it positively affirms a universe that makes sense – a universe where reason and love and purpose are grounded in the ultimate reality of a rational, loving, purposeful God.

Ultimately, the question of God’s existence is not just an abstract debate; it profoundly affects how we see ourselves and our world. Based on the arguments presented, one can see why many thinkers conclude that believing in God provides a firmer foundation for understanding reality. Atheism, in trying to remove God, ends up removing the very meaning, value, and coherence that make life worth living and reality comprehensible. Theism restores those elements by recognizing that they flow from the very source of all being. In light of all this, one might well agree that the universe is not the result of a cosmic accident, but rather the intentional creation of a supremely intelligent and caring Mind – a conclusion that imbues both our minds and the cosmos with profound significance.