The Existence Of Atoms

If someone was to doubt the existence of atoms in a public setting, he or she would likely be met with shock followed by ridicule.  Many people seem to assume that a scientific or social consensus is strong evidence that a particular conclusion is true, and, because atoms are an integral part of modern physics, it is hardly surprising that the existence of atoms is often not doubted.  In spite of this, the existence of matter--which is not up in the air [1], as the vast majority of people ultimately suppose when they are relentlessly pressed--does not necessitate that atoms exist.

Matter exists; one can be absolutely certain of this [1].  The fact that I feel physical sensations necessarily means that I have a physical body in which my consciousness resides.  The existence of atoms, contrarily, much less the existence of subatomic particles like electrons, is not something that can be directly verified or falsified.  The idea that atoms (or electrons, protons, neutrons, or quarks) exist can only be supported by situational sensory data, never to be completely established or refuted by empirical observation.  This is the nature of all scientific inquiries.  There is nothing that a scientific experiment proves about the natural world beyond the veil of perception--and even then, the perceived scientific laws are not guaranteed to last beyond the present moment in which they are observed.

Science is of great value as far as convenience is concerned, but it is of no use when it comes to verifying or falsifying metaphysical claims, such as those about the existence of atoms.  Reason alone can prove or disprove miscellaneous facts.  Airtight and immutable, logic is in every way superior to the scientific method.  It is only through reason that one can prove the existence of an external world, though only a select few ever realize that the existence of the external world is neither ultimately unknowable nor something that cannot be demonstrated without some degree of faith.  Science is simply not capable of proving that the external world exists (much less that atoms do), as there must already be an external world before one can even use the scientific method to begin with.

Does the inability to prove that atoms exist within the external world mean that they do not?  No!  This does not follow in any way.  Science cannot prove that a particle exists, but it also cannot prove that a particle does not exist.  Ultimately, the only things which can be proven to not exist are things that violate the laws of logic, whether by virtue of containing a contradiction within themselves (like beings or particles that exist and don't exist simultaneously or an alogical region) or conflicting with some other truth.  When it comes to scientific matters, an absence of evidence does not and cannot prove that a given thing does not exist.

Any physical object that does not contradict logic could hypothetically exist, but proving the possibility of a particle's existence is very different than amassing consistent evidence for the presence of the particle.  Furthermore, it must be emphasized that mere evidence can prove nothing except that the evidence itself exists.  I have a body; matter exists outside of my body; the laws of logic necessarily govern all components of matter.  Beyond these facts, the nature of the external world can only be hypothesized and supported by simple evidence as opposed to being verified by logical proofs, never to be truly known by humans as long as various epistemic limitations endure. 

The existence of atoms is ultimately uncertain.  The mass tendency for people to deny, when pressed, that the existence of an external world can be infallibly proven while reacting with confusion when someone denies that the existence of atoms can be known is a testament to the stupidity of many academics and "laypeople" [2] alike.  The folly of non-rationalists runs deep.


[1].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html

[2].  No one is truly a non-philosopher.  While the degree of a person's orientation towards philosophical matters, as well as their accuracy, can vary wildly from that of others, there is no such thing as a conscious person who is without a worldview.  The only way to have a worldview is to engage in philosophy to at least some minor extent.  Thus, all "laypeople" are philosophers in some way.