Is it reasonable to look within man for truth? Man who is born with imperfections, dependencies, and a mortal body that slowly dies from the moment of birth? Is it not more reasonable for man to see his nature being imperfect and ultimately corrupt as a reason to look for his antithesis as the source for truth? An imperfect, dependent, mortal being should naturally assume the existence of a perfect, independent, immortal being. This should then lead to a subordinate view of man below the perfect immortal being that must of necessity be above and superior to all that exists. Therefore, faith and belief in a god is far more reasonable than the denial of any superior existence. Those who deny the possibility of a perfect being existing passively deny their own imperfection, deem themselves a god among mortals and should then define perfection by their imperfect perception and existence. Is this not the behavior of insane men? Did not Hitler take this view to its logical end? He deemed himself a god among men and became the one who sought to define perfection while ridding the world of what he thought to be imperfect. Men who deny any god yet live peaceably with other men deny their own supposed godlike nature by living equal to and not above other men. If they be a god, they are not one worthy of worship, let alone worth listening to.

Below is the same basic argument with revisions due to flaws and weaknesses that were exposed through criticism.  Thank you to everyone who contributed in the discussion that has led me to a more sound argument.

Men are not naturally "Atheist", they become Atheist.  To claim that a man is naturally Atheist is untrue unless the concept of God is automatically pure nonsense to him.  Take the youngest child with the earliest stage of intellect in place.  When you try to explain God to them, you are not met with immediate distrust and rejection.  They have the natural capacity to understand the concept of God.  Now try to explain that an engine exists inside a car and makes it go.  Numerous questions and even mistrust may follow.  They have the ability to be taught and to learn what an engine is, but the built in capacity to grasp the concept of an engine is not there as it is with God.  We have a natural schema built in for knowledge of God.  This is common and easy to access empirical data.

If this schema was not built in, then men would see the concept of God as pure and un-intelligible nonsense from the earliest age.  Sure they can be "indoctrinated" but eventually, ideas of Santa Claus or Unicorns are seen as untenable because evidence is lacking as well as a schema.  If this schema for God were not there, men would not see fit for constant written or spoken denial of God.  So men, in a sense, become Atheist.  They deny knowledge that they already knew to begin with.  So the Atheist who uses any energy to deny God’s existence ends up confirming his own innate knowledge of the very thing he wishes to deny.  In other words, with every word written and spoken in an effort to deny God’s existence, the Atheist proves he was born with a schema for knowledge of God that he is now opposed to.  Because if the Atheist’s natural state of mind was “Atheist”, then the concept of God would be so foreign and stupid to him, he would not waste a single second denying such nonsense.

Where does the idea of truth come from?  What makes something true?  Why do we think in the realm of true and false?

If something is true then it can never be false.  For example, 2+2=4.  If that is true, then it can never be false.  If there exists a possibility for it to ever be false then it was never true.  But, some may say, it is now 1 o'clock and in an hour that will not be true, it is only true for that moment.  However, we know that the passing of a moment verifies its existence.  If it is now 2 o'clock, that verifies the truth that it was previously 1 o'clock.  So it does not prove things can be momentarily true because they can still be seen as true once the moment passes.  The fact that I'm now 26 years old verifies that it was true to say I was 25 last year.

But we treat some truths as unchanging.  We think 2 plus 2 equals 4 now, and will always equal 4.  If we say that 2+2=5 is a possibility in the distant future, then the truth of 2+2=4 is undercut.  The very reliability of math would be demolished.  However, we treat and trust math as very reliable.  We think and act as if 2+2 will always equal 4.  Therefore, to us, true and false are eternal concepts.  It will always be true that I was 25 last year and 2 plus 2 will always equal 4.  So we, as finite creatures, at our foundational thinking level, think in infinite terms.  This leaves two possibilities.  An infinite "thing" exists, and we are thinking rightly, or an infinite "thing" does not exist, and we are thinking wrongly.

If we think in the realm of true and false by a mere evolutionary process, then does truth even really exist?  Is it not just something we created?  A mere means by which we converse, a way in which we choose to look at existence?  And if we created the idea of truth, then we can create a new idea.  I can choose to ignore "truth" and think in my own terms.  But is such a thing even possible?  I can say 2+2=100, but 2 dollar bills added to another 2 dollar bills will not suddenly become 100.  If I say gravity does not exist and then jump off a building, I will fall.  The things around us simply are.  So if something is "there", it cannot suddenly be "not there" just because I say so.  So truth must come from somewhere.  Truth is, in a sense, imposed upon us.  I cannot fly by saying gravity does not exist or create money merely by stating exaggerated addition.

But why do we, as humans, think in terms of true and false?  Why do we not just merely exist and act on instinct alone?  Even if a man says, "There is no such thing as true and false!  All is relative!"  Such a man is insisting his view is true and that the opposite is false.  This kind of thinking self destructs.  Or some say, "There are no absolutes, I trust gravity to keep me in place because it always has.  And I trust 2+2 to equal 4, because it always has."  Yes, but if your friend was always on time, would you place such a trust in him?  "I trust my friend will always be on time because he always has."  Such thinking, when placed in another situation, looks quite foolish.  People around you would protest, "But what if there is an accident?  Or if he forgets?"  Would such a person cross their arms and say, "No, he will always be on time because he always has."  But alas, such is the reasoning of many.  "Gravity will keep me here because it always has and my bank account will stay as it is because it always has."  But what if gravity stops?  Suddenly, the earths rotation stays the same, but the laws of gravity change.  Or what if 2 dollars suddenly became 1 dollar?  If there are no absolutes, then such things are possible, and faith placed in gravity or math is really quite foolish.  Someone who is sick and claims they are not is often referred to as "delusional".  So I suppose someone who has faith in absolute things but claims they do not could also be referred to as "delusional".  And I don't suppose anyone should really take what they say seriously.

Objection #1: Ultimately what if there is no basis for morality without God? It does not follow that God exists. It follows that you would like God to exist to impose your evolved preferences on a big world you can’t control. Interesting that in an atheistic world view, you are the guilty party doing exactly what you believe the atheists to be doing…while the atheists are content with appeal to common ground in modest ways.

Response #1: This sounds like Dawkins.  First, it misunderstands my argument.  I’m not saying, “This fits nicely, therefore God exists.”  Second, it cuts the ground out from under itself.  Atheists/naturalists do the very thing that Christians are accused of in the above quote.  “Well, it fits nicely in our worldview to say reason evolved, therefore reason evolved.”  Concluding two things: First, if you’re going to make this argument, make it at the right time.  And second, be prepared to lose all of your foundation about reason evolving.

 

Objection #2: Even in a closed system, we have natural rights.  They are actions of pure will (at least subconsciously) and made obvious through our desires.  In nature, we have the right to create, destroy, and manipulate to our desires anything we care to expend the effort on.  In otherwords, you can kill, rape, and steal all as you choose.  But, in a closed system, everything has a consequence, and equal and opposite reaction/option.  With these rights, you also have the rights to BE killed, to BE raped, and to BE robbed

So, with all of this, a father in a closed system is still not allowed to kill his child, because that child has the ability to claim his rights, and he has, as a part of the human race, already manifested his desire not to "Get what's coming to him."  There is no room for hypocricy in a closed system.  Or something to that effect.

Response #2: Your first paragraph essentially argues for survival of the fittest with a dash of “for every action there’s a reaction.”  Then you jump to the conclusion that a father “isn’t allowed” to kill his child because the child can claim his rights?  There is no connection between the two paragraphs whatsoever.  This argument, despite being difficult to understand, doesn’t conclude anything.  The only thing it shows is that you reach a point where you have to claim certain things are “just so” with no evidence of support when arguing from the naturalist camp.

Objection #1: the true objection to overcome is the "social benefit" objection.  That is naturalists tend to assume a pragmatic position stating that a social structure benefits the whole, therefore social structures are constructs in order to create a better "mutual beneficial" system.

Response #1: This type of objection does not gain any ground.  It simply states that we want things, and agree as a group to help each other gain those things; happiness, safety, wealth, etc.  This actually generates another problem: what if a group decides to construct an idea that is contrary to another group?  Who is right?  Who is wrong?  A purely natural study would lead nowhere in coming to a decision.

Objection #2: It is this reason that tells us that if we would like to be treated with dignity and respect we must show that same consideration to others. However you would also have to argue that all animals posess the possibility for the development of reason. If we're arguing that humans evolved from other animal forms I don't see any reason why we couldn't also argue the evolution of reason.

Response #2: The evolution of reason is, at best, a guess.  And not just a guess, but a prediction made in an effort to maintain a pre-commitment to a naturalistic worldview.  There is no natural scientific data that would lead a scientist to say “reason has evolved.”  Scientists only say this in an effort to maintain their worldview.  Any “facts” raised to support this are merely being interpreted as “proof” because it fits a predetermined outcome.

Objection #3: Have you read any of B.B. Warfield's writings on naturalism?

Response #3: No, I have not.

Objection #4: a naturalistic society is indeed survival of the fittest... The key word being survival. The unfortunate side effect of the strongest getting what they need to survive is that they most likely have the additional power to get what they don't need to survive. (What need does the Kenyan man have for the midget woman?)

Response #4: Survival of the fittest doesn’t necessitate that everyone will behave themselves.  Again, from a purely natural standpoint, how can you tell the Kenyan man what he is doing is wrong?  He may see it as a way of survival, that isn’t for you to decide for him.