A reply to an atheist correspondent

An atheist took the time to drop by my skeptical exposure of the non-existence of Richard Dawkins. He raised some questions, which I thought were at the wrong level - if he wanted to be a consistent atheist. I share my reply here:

(Introduction snipped).

I'd want to raise some more fundamental questions than these ones. Some questions behind these questions.

Lots of these statements presuppose ideas that have a good grounding in Christian belief. I am reminded that Dawkins himself confesses to being a "Christian atheist". But what grounding do they have if you jettison recognition of a personal, all-powerful divine being? What I mean is that talk about the value of life, or life being too short, about what people have interest in or don't have interest in, ideas about logic, discussion about burdens of proof (all assuming that such things must be binding on all of us equally) - this all has some grounding if we presuppose that there is an objective order of reality, and values which have intrinsic value beyond the material existence of your or my brain or body. It makes sense if we are willing to acknowledge values greater than ourselves, and the objective reality of our personal existence and that our self-consciousness experience is actually grounded in something.

But, if we presuppose atheism, then what basis is there for any of these things? If we accept materialism, then all our discussion is *ultimately* just a temporary new arrangement of matter - soon to be replaced by a different one. Who cares?

Apparently not only do I care, but you care too. And so you should. I'm glad you do. But this is just one more testimony, not simply of the mere "existence" of our Maker, but of his all-importance, and of the fact that we know he is there and are rebelling against him. i.e. Of the objective reality too of your and my sin against him.