Atheism Is Defenseless
Brian R. Kenyon

Twice, the psalmist said, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 14:1; 53:1). Many people in our society would claim to be atheists. According to the American Atheists website, the top reason why people are atheists is because “There is no proof for the existence of god.” Any rational person can know that this statement is false based upon the solid evidence that this universe can only be explained by supernatural creation, which necessitates God. When logically presented with truth, no atheist can rationally defend atheism. This was probably no more adequately shown than in the Warren-Flew debate on the existence of God. This debate was held in Denton, Texas, on September 20-23, 1976. It can be seen in its entirety at www.theBible.net. Brother Thomas B. Warren had perhaps the keenest mind of his generation, and he dedicated it to the promotion and defense of the Gospel. Anthony Flew was a professor of philosophy at University of Reading, England, and was the leading spokesman for atheism of his day, having written several books and lectured all over the world on atheistic naturalism.

The remainder of this article will primarily be quotes of the reactions to this debate. It is relevant here because of the series of articles we concluded last week on “Creation or Evolution?” Rest assured, not even the most highly educated professors can refute the simple arguments for the existence of God!

Why Did The Atheist Refuse To Make A Sound Argument?

The following is from brother Roy Deaver, who served as brother Warren’s “right hand man” during the debate. It is taken from “Atheists Cannot Defend Atheism: The Warren-Flew Debate,” Spiritual Sword, July 1977, pages 17-18.

"This question comes in recognition of the fact that it is the case that Dr. Flew did steadfastly refuse to make a sound argument.

"In logic, the term “argument” refers to the basic unit of reasoning. It means a “unit of discourse in which beliefs are supported by reasons.” An argument is a unit of discourse which seeks to prove that something is or is not the case. An argument, therefore, is made up of two basic parts: (1) premises—the evidence—and (2) the conclusion.

"When a series of statements are intended to prove a point they may be (and, in fact, ought to be) reduced to a syllogism. An error which is concealed in three hundred pages becomes crystal clear when reduced to a three-line syllogism.

"In order for an argument to be sound, two things are necessary: (1) the syllogism has to be valid, and (2) the premises have to be true. A syllogism is valid when the premises (whether true or false) demand the conclusion. There is a difference in validity and truth. There are definite laws (five basic laws) governing validity, and if a single law of validity is violated the syllogism is not valid. If the syllogism is valid, then the logician asks: are the premises true. If the syllogism is valid, and if the premises are true—then the argument is sound.

"Dr. Flew knows full-well what a sound argument is. He knows that argumentation is not assertion and is not insinuation. He constantly chides and ridicules religious people for refusing to make a sound argument. He constantly calls upon them to face up to the task of proving their position. The “Law of Rationality” holds that “We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence.” Dr. Flew respects this law. Dr. Flew (of all people) did not refuse to make a sound argument because he did not know what a sound argument is!

"Literally hundreds of people have expressed to me their disappointment because Dr. Flew refused to make an argument. He raised questions. He chided. He insinuated. He indicated that he would eventually get around to actual argumentation. But, he never did. He did a lot of talking and philosophizing, but he never did get down to the task of trying to prove his point....One person said: “Dr. Flew would approach the microphone as if he were really going to do something this time, and then just fizzle.”

"It seems to me that the weak and disappointing efforts upon the part of Dr. Flew really show the force, the power, and the value of the debate. If Dr. Flew could have made a sound argument the conclusion of which would have been “I know that God does not exist” Dr. Flew would have done so. The fact that Dr. Flew did not proves that he could not, and that he knew that he could not! Dr. Flew’s failure to make an argument also indicated his profound respect for Dr. Warren. He knew that every word he said would be carefully and thoroughly examined by brother Warren, and that no error would be allowed to pass unnoticed. Dr. Flew could not make an argument which would stand up under the light of logical examination."

"Leading Atheist Has Change Of Heart"

Twenty-eight years later, in a December 10, 2004, Associated Press release, the following appeared in newspapers under the title of the heading above:

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God—more or less—based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video.

"At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Anthony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence of first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England."

One cannot help but to believe that Flew’s debate with brother Warren influenced this “change of heart.” We must realize that our faith is not a blind leap in the dark, but is based on the real God!