Naturalism must be false because it leads to contradictions:

  1. The universe is all that exists (naturalist’s premise)
  2. The universe is just the sum of it’s parts
  3. The parts were all caused
  4. The universe is therefore caused (2 & 3)
  5. The cause cannot be one of it’s parts (illogical)
  6. But only it’s parts exist (1 & 2)
  7. The cause cannot exist (5 & 6)

But 7 contradicts 4!

Now, to resolve this problem you’d have to deny one of the premises but this leads to more contradictions and conflicts with science and knowledge of the universe. Try denying and you get:

  1. You are not a naturalist
  2. You are not a scientist
  3. Special pleading – some special part was uncaused
  4. Illogical, irrational
  5. Illogical, something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not yet exist in order to do so.
  6. Illogical, irrational
  7. Illogical, irrational

Typically atheists will either conclude:

  1. There is no cause!
    This is special pleading, question begging and contrary to the axiom of science known as Causality. It also implies the universe is eternal which science tells us it is not. One would also have to be all-knowing in order to assert that something has no cause.
  2. We don’t know the answer…yet
    This is a common response with the implication that science will one day discover a way in which things can cause themselves, pop into existence or be eternal. It is therefore the assumption that one day science will triumph over logic without realising that this will topple science as it is the foundation on which science stands.

Because there is no way out and the statement “nature is all there is, was or ever will be” is manifestly false a rational being must conclude that something transcending nature exists. Either nature is all there is or there is something else with nothing in between.