Authored by: Nocterro.

As one peruses the internet taking part in discussions on the existence of God, one is inevitably exposed to arguments. Of these, some will be properly categorized as “Bad Arguments.” Some of the most common are as follows:

“You have just as much faith in science/atheism as I do in God/religion/the bible”

When this argument is presented, the typical atheist response is to explain that their position is NOT faith based. However, it seems as this gives undue credence to the argument. The fact is, the “argument from equal faith” is hypocritical. For the theist to say that the atheist has an equal amount of faith is to say two things:

1) It is an admission that the theist has faith concerning the existence of God
2) It is an admission that since faith justifies the theist position – and is therefore a good way of knowing something – and therefore gives just as much credence to the atheists’ position as to the theists’ own.

The overall goal for this argument, at least among the theists who are actually concerned with real discussion of ideas, is to say that the atheist cannot criticize a position which is based on faith, since they themselves have faith. Such intellectual theists, when they make this argument, seem to really mean something akin to Warranted Belief/Properly Basic Belief/Justified True Belief, and not the traditional “Belief without evidence”. However, when this argument is made by the theist, the discussion turns from the validity of the theist/atheist positions to which “ways of knowing” are valid and which are not.

“This person who shares your worldview was/is a bad person.”

I see this on both sides. Examples include “Hitler was a Christian” and “Stalin was an atheist”. Well, so what? This says nothing about the truth of an idea. Many true ideas are unpleasant. My uncle passed away some years back; this does not mean that I will reject the idea merely because it is unpleasant. Yes, Hitler was probably a Christian. Yes, Stalin was probably an atheist. It simply does not matter.

“You can’t disprove God.”

I often see this on the atheist side, and it is simply not true. Consider this:

If X, then not Y.
X.
Therefore, not Y.

The way to disprove God is simple. First, make your opponent give a critically robust definition of the sort of God he or she is arguing for. Then, show that something exists which is contradictory to some attribute of your opponent’s definition of God. For example, if your opponent claims that God gives everyone who believes he exists $10 weekly, simply point to a believer who does not receive $10 weekly, and your opponent’s God is disproved. This is also how the “problem of evil” argument works. It claims that the existence of evil is contradictory to the proposition “God exists”. Therefore, such a proposition is false. Of course, if no definition of God is given before an attempt to disprove God is made, then the theist may simply shift the goalposts. At the same time, an atheist who makes this argument after a definition of God has been presented is merely trying to shift the burden of proof.

“Without a presupposition that God exists, you cannot explain anything.”

Yes, I can.

I am hungry.
I feel hunger because the trait for feeling hunger when the body needs food has been selected for.

Of course, my opponent may then say that I have not explained why/how that trait has been selected for, however, that is shifting the goalposts and asking me to explain something other than my original statement. I have already given an explanation for “I am hungry”, without invoking God. What the theist means by this argument is “Without a presupposition that God exists, you cannot explain X”, where X is not everything, but one specific thing, most often morality, or logic. This more refined form of the argument is known as the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, or TAG. These arguments are better, and there are several strong responses to them, including: http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

“Historical Jesus”

This one is not so obvious. At first glance, it may seem that showing there was a historical Jesus validates Christianity. But it does not. All it shows is that there was a historical Jesus. It does not show that he was divine in any way. Showing that the Bible is correct in its historical claims does not show it is correct in its theological claims.

Let’s go one step further, though. Imagine for the sake of argument that someone showed that Jesus did indeed resurrect. Would that validate Christianity? Surprisingly, no. All it would show is that a man resurrected, not that Yahweh exists and that such a being was the cause of such an event. It could have been that it was the doing of some other sort of god, or even something else supernatural.

But let’s go even one more step further. Evidence of an actual resurrection does nothing to show that ANY supernatural event took place. All it would really show, at its core, is that we are incorrect in our belief that resurrection after death is not naturally possible.

To show that Jesus is lord, you have to first show that the God of the bible exists via another method. If you don’t, that means you’re presupposing that such a god exists.

“Believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus/believing in God means you are delusional”

True, some people may believe in a god because they were brought up that way. But there are certainly good arguments for the existence of a god. These arguments must be carefully examined; they cannot be dismissed as mere belief in a myth for no reason at all. There is an obvious difference, for example, between Plantinga’s concept of God and Zeus. Some atheists have just as much trouble justifying their position as some theists. They may claim that the theist is delusional, or even schizophrenic. But perhaps they should look at their own defenses of their position. Here are the criteria for delusion:

• certainty (held with absolute conviction)
• incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
• impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

Some theists may meet the first criteria, however certainty alone does not mean one is delusional. Many people are certain about many things. Remember: delusion should only be diagnosed by a psychological professional.