For me, atheism has a logical problem of philosophical cogency. The
atheist worldview has an epistemology that won't comport with its
metaphysical narrative.

From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Meyer
December 24, 2006

Many of the critiques I have received so far, have focused on
debunking analogies I have used, more so than refuting specific points
against atheism. If you are an accomplishing logician, you can
probably find logical fallacies in virtually any polemic. It is simple
to explain why this is the case. Whenever two things are compared
which are not identical, or at least not substantially similar,
someone opposing your perspective who wants to maintain the antithesis
between the two views, will critique the analogy by only citing the
dissimilarities. The individual making the argument, on the other
hand, is emphasizing the commonalities.

Now I will focus on some philosophical elements of this topic.

Why should someone be an atheist? Some, who want to take the
intellectual high ground, will say they are forced into that
conclusion because religious beliefs are inherently irrational. But
are they really? They are only irrational if one must try to prove
them using the presuppositions held by the atheist. If you get aboard
another traveler's tour bus, you will go to his destination. The
quintessential question in examining either atheism or theism as a
system of thought, would be in determining whose presuppositions are
justified.

For me, atheism has a logical problem of philosophical cogency. The
atheist worldview has an epistemology that won't comport with its
metaphysical narrative. If the universe is actually nothing but matter
in motion, Francis Crick is right when he says that abstractions would
be mere neurological sensations caused by the reactions of nerve
endings and chemicals in the brain. The concepts of morality, meaning,
self-awareness, personal identity, logic, justice, etc. would also be
the result of specific stimulations of nerve endings and eruptions of
brain chemicals.

If this is the stark reality, then atheists must borrow from the
theistic worldview to account for the existence of anything
non-material by nature. In denying the Creator, the atheist ought to
throw out everything that is contingent on a theistic worldview. In
effect, by using abstract concepts, they have thrown out the baby,
kept the bath water, and now try to explain why the bath water is
meaningful.