By Ajit Krishna Dasa
The Common Objection: No Shared Foundations
Some argue that meaningful debate between the theist and the atheist is impossible. Their reasoning is simple: if one accepts that reality is founded on the Supreme Person, and the other denies any transcendent source, what real dialogue is possible? Aren’t they just speaking past one another, trapped within incompatible presuppositions?
This objection seems persuasive at first glance. After all, if our basic assumptions about reality, truth, and meaning differ, what common ground could we possibly share?
To understand the force of this objection, it is necessary to appreciate what a presupposition actually is. A presupposition is not simply an opinion about some isolated fact. It is a deep, fundamental belief that shapes how all facts are interpreted. For example, if one person believes that Krishna is the ultimate cause and purpose of everything, he will interpret logic, morality, science, and daily experience in that light. If another person believes that there is no higher reality beyond matter, he will interpret logic, morality, science, and experience very differently — without any ultimate purpose or divine source.
Thus, it seems that the two individuals are living in different intellectual worlds.
They not only disagree about isolated points — they disagree about what counts as a fact, what counts as evidence, what counts as reason itself. If so, how can a rational conversation even begin? If both are judging each other’s arguments by radically different standards, it appears debate must collapse into futility.
This fear — that debate is impossible — is partly correct. On the surface level, the theist and atheist do not share ultimate foundations. Their worldviews are not merely different; they are opposed.
However, this is only part of the truth.
What this objection overlooks is that there is a deeper level of reality beneath verbal claims. And at that deeper level, the atheist and theist are not living in separate realities — they are both living in Krishna’s reality. Whether they accept it or deny it, they remain under the same Supreme order.
No Neutral Ground — But Common Ground Exists
It is true: there is no “neutral ground.” We cannot step outside of reality and construct a platform independent of Krishna’s existence. Both the theist and the atheist are standing within Krishna’s creation, governed by His laws, and sustained by His energies. Whether one acknowledges it or not,
mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ — every living entity is eternally Krishna’s part and parcel (Bhagavad-gītā 15.7).
Thus, while neutrality is a myth, commonality remains. Debate is not impossible because, despite verbal differences, the atheist too is bound by the reality established by Krishna.
How Even the Atheist Depends on Krishna
The atheist cannot operate independently of Krishna, even in his rebellion. He demands reasoned argument, but reason presupposes an intelligible, ordered universe — a reality that exists only because Krishna, the Supreme Consciousness, maintains it. He expects moral obligations to be meaningful, but morality is grounded in the eternal principles (sanātana-dharma) set by the Supreme. He relies on causality and empirical observation, yet causality itself is Krishna’s arrangement of material nature.
Thus, the atheist’s very capacity to argue rests on assumptions that only make sense if Krishna exists. In attempting to refute God, the atheist must secretly borrow from God’s creation.
The Rebellious Son Analogy
The situation is similar to a rebellious son shouting, “I have no father!” He may scream denial, but he still eats the food provided by his father, sleeps in the house built by his father, and carries the name given by his father. His rebellion is noisy, but powerless to erase his dependence.
In the same way, the atheist’s rejection of Krishna is not a demonstration of independence; it is a contradiction he cannot resolve. His mouth denies, but his existence proclaims — Krishna is.
Why Debate Is Not Only Possible but Necessary
Because the atheist cannot escape his dependence on Krishna, debate remains both possible and meaningful. It is not a meeting on neutral terms; it is a confrontation between two visions: one that recognizes Krishna’s supremacy, and one that vainly pretends independence while standing on Krishna’s ground.
The devotee engages not to seek common authority apart from Krishna, but to reveal that even the atheist must borrow from Krishna’s authority to argue at all. The devotee’s task is to expose this dependence — gently or sharply, according to circumstance — and to invite the soul back to remembrance of his true position.
Exposing the Borrowed Capital
Although the atheist may verbally reject the existence of God, he nonetheless continues to live as if many aspects of reality are stable, meaningful, and reliable. He reasons, makes moral judgments, and conducts scientific investigation — all of which depend on deeper assumptions that are not consistent with a godless worldview, but are fully coherent within the worldview of Krishna consciousness.
Take, for example, the use of logic. The atheist may challenge the theist by asking for logical proof of Krishna’s existence. But in doing so, he is assuming that logic is a universally binding and trustworthy tool. This raises a deeper question: why should logic exist at all in a purely material universe governed by blind, accidental processes? If everything is just the outcome of physical reactions, why should reasoning be reliable? Why should abstract laws of logic apply everywhere, always, and for everyone? These assumptions only make sense if the universe is grounded in intelligence and order — in other words, in Krishna. Without Krishna, logic is reduced to a strange illusion arising from atoms — but with Krishna, it is the natural expression of a cosmos created and sustained by the supreme intelligence.
A similar issue arises with morality. The atheist may declare that it is wrong for people to suffer unjustly or that certain actions are evil. But what does “wrong” mean in a universe without a moral governor? If everything is just physical matter, then what is morality except a personal or social preference? Without a higher standard — an eternal dharma — moral claims have no objective basis. The Vaiṣṇava worldview affirms that morality is real because it is grounded in Krishna’s will. Dharma is not invented by humans; it is revealed by the Supreme. Therefore, when the atheist insists on justice or condemns evil, he is implicitly relying on a moral order that cannot be accounted for within his own worldview — but is fully accounted for in Krishna’s.
The same is true with science. Scientific research depends on the assumption that nature is orderly and consistent. We believe that water will boil tomorrow at the same temperature it does today. But why? In a universe without Krishna, governed by chaos and randomness, there is no logical reason to expect regularity. The atheist takes the uniformity of nature for granted, yet he cannot explain why nature should behave predictably in the future simply because it has done so in the past. That assumption — that the universe is governed by stable laws — only makes sense if those laws come from a law-giver. In Vaiṣṇava philosophy, that law-giver is Krishna, whose energies move in a consistent, ordered way under His supervision.
In all these cases, the atheist functions as if Krishna were real — even while denying Him. His life, thoughts, and actions presuppose a world that only Krishna can provide. This is what makes debate meaningful. The goal is not to win an argument on neutral ground, but to show that the very foundation the atheist stands on belongs to Krishna — and always has.
The Final Reality: No Escape from Krishna
There is no neutral platform from which to judge Krishna. There is only Krishna’s platform, upon which both the grateful and the rebellious must stand — until time, karma, or Krishna’s mercy awakens remembrance.
The so-called “impossibility” of debate is simply a failure to grasp reality itself. Debate not only remains possible; it becomes a powerful arena where the eternal truths of Krishna consciousness can be revealed, even through the words of those who try hardest to deny them.
Ajit Krishna Dasa 
Leave a comment