Like absolute truth, absolute values are also undeniable. While the claim “There are not absolute values” is not self-defeating, the existence of absolute values is practically undeniable. For the person who denies all values, values his right to deny them. Further, he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons.
– Geisler, Norm and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, copyright 2004, page 173
Some call this moral prescription “conscience”; others call it “Natural Law”; still others (like our Founding Fathers) refer to it as “Nature’s Law.” We refer to it as “The Moral Law.” But whatever you call it, the fact that a moral standard has been prescribed on the minds of all human beings points to a Moral Law Prescriber. Ever prescription has a prescriber. The Moral Law is no different. Someone must have given us these moral obligations.
– Geisler, Norm and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, copyright 2004, page 170
The Darwinists’ position is even more problematic when you consider that they don’t even have an explanation for the source of the non-living chemicals, much less an explanation for life…one of the most profound questions to ask is, “If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all?” We saw that the atheists have no plausible answer to this question. Suggesting a possibility is not enough – they have to present evidence if they are going to be scientific. It’s obvious they don’t know where the universe came from. A good box top (worldview) should be able to plausibly explain all of the data. If it can’t answer the fundamental questions of the origin of the world or the origin of life, it’s not a viable box top. It’s time to look for a new one.
– Geisler, Norm and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, copyright 2004, page 140