The “Matter in Motion” argument challenges atheism by highlighting a logical contradiction between the atheistic view of human origins and the human recognition of objective morality.
According to the source, this argument challenges atheism in the following ways:
- Inconsistency with Moral Judgment: Atheistic evolution suggests that humans are nothing more than “matter in motion” that evolved from rocks and slime over billions of years. The source argues that it is illogical to apply moral labels like “cruel,” “evil,” or “wicked” to inanimate matter, noting that “nobody speaks of ‘wrong rocks,’ ‘moral minerals,’ or ‘corrupt chemicals'”.
- The Animal Comparison: If humans are merely evolved animals and “matter in motion,” there is no logical reason for them to be subject to moral standards that do not apply to the rest of nature. For example, the source points out that a dog is not considered “depraved” for stealing a bone, and a killer whale is not “guilty” of murder.
- Devaluation of Human Life: Viewing humans strictly as matter in motion strips life of meaningful purpose and inherent value. The source cites an atheist who admitted that in a cosmic sense, humans are no different than “ants or rats or like pieces of broccoli”.
- The Logical Dilemma: The argument forces atheists to face a difficult choice: they must either admit that objective morality exists—which would imply the existence of a Moral Lawgiver (God)—or argue that everything is relative. If they choose the latter, they cannot logically condemn even the most horrific acts, such as child abuse or the mass murders of Nazi Germany, as being “objectively” evil.
Ultimately, the source concludes that the very fact that humans think about morality and recognize universal rules against murder or theft proves that we are not just “matter in motion,” but were created by a good God who established those standards.