This blog post will discuss several categories of arguments often used to support atheism. Please note that this article is not about giving arguments for theism, instead this article simply discusses commonly given arguments for atheism. I have divided them into the following categories:
> Non-Theistic arguments: Arguments that do not support atheism, but instead try to evade the necessity for argumentation altogether. These are often arguments for the low prior-probability of GOD's existence, or arguments rooted in certain (often misguided) isms. See the subsection (menu on the right) for a discussion on these types of arguments.
> Evil and suffering: Arguments related to morality and GOD; this discussion has been moved to its own series of posts (see the navigation menu on the right).
> Contradicting GOD: Deductive arguments attempting to show the existence of GOD is logically strictly impossible.
> Arguments from expectations: Arguments following this form: 1) If GOD would exist, we would expect to see [X]; > 2) We do not see [X]; > 3) Therefore GOD most probably does not exist.
> Arguments for explanatory power: Arguments that say that in order to argue that GOD's existence or actions explain a certain fact or event, one needs to give an underlying explanation for that explanation.
> "What if"-arguments: “What if” – arguments are arguments that try to speculate about reality itself, in order to question absolutely everything, including theism and atheism and everything else.
> Popular deceptive arguments: Deceptive arguments often used by the common folk and by popularisers. The kind of arguments many people find convincing, and popularised by atheistic groups like "The New Atheists".
CONTRADICTING GOD
If there is a category of arguments for atheism that has the potential to destroy theism, it is this category. This category, which I call “contradicting GOD”, governs all arguments that seek to find two (or more) properties of a monotheistic GOD (especially the Christian version) that cannot co-exist logically, as well as properties that are self-defeating. For example: try to imagine a single straight line of a few centimeters that does not bend nor has any angles, and yet has only one end. You cannot imagine this, for such a thing is logically impossible. In the same fashion, if an atheist could find a proper argument in this category, he/she would surely have a good defeater for theism. Alas, up until now, no atheist (as far as I know) has succeeded in creating a sound argument in this category. I will now give a number of such arguments, and show why these particular arguments are not sound arguments (logically speaking).
> the Omnipotence paradox. This is probably the most famous argument in this list, and is often stated in the form of the following question: "Can GOD create a rock so heavy HE cannot lift it?" This argument tries to attack the property of GOD being omnipotent. So, can GOD create a rock so heavy HE cannot lift it? This questions assumes GOD is absolutely omnipotent. But HE's not. For example, GOD cannot do illogical things. In the Biblical perspective, GOD cannot lie, GOD cannot commit suicide, and so on. So, can GOD create a rock so heavy HE cannot lift it? No, HE cannot.
> the Omniscience -Omnipotence paradox. This is an argument that attack GOD’s omniscience (the “all-knowing”-property) and omnipotence. It goes like this: If GOD knows the future, and knows all things, HE should be able to change the future that is different from what HE knows. There are 2 assumptions here that are (in my opinion) incorrect: 1) the argument assumes that GOD knows only 1 possible future. But if there are multiple futures, GOD knows all of them. 2) the argument assumes GOD can change the future in such a way that even HE cannot know it. But, as stated in the Omnipotence paradox, there are certainly things GOD cannot do: so, no, GOD cannot change the future such that it is different from what HE knows.
> Theological fatalism. This argument attacks GOD’s fore-knowledge of everyone’s actions, and the freewill of humans to act. According to this argument, if GOD knows what you will do, you will do it necessarily. This argument can be solved in (at least) two ways. One way is to say that GOD’s fore-knowledge does not remove our freewill. After all, the fact that we can predict the weather does not mean that we control the weather. Even if humans created the atmosphere, oceans, lands, and all other factors that create the weather, that still does not mean our predictions of the weather is the same as controlling the weather. In short: Prediction does not equal causation. Another way to solve this argument is to say that we humans have compatible free will instead of libertarian free will. (But I consider it unlikely that compatible free will is true; Libertarian free will is much more likely in my opinion)
> the creation – perfection contradiction (AKA “no-reason”-argument or “praxeological argument”). This argument states that GOD, being perfect, has no needs to be satisfied. HE does not need food, water, intellectual pleasure, or anything. Thus, states the argument, such a GOD also has no need to create a universe. Since the universe exists, GOD cannot exist because it implies GOD needs something. This argument assumes that GOD create the universe to satisfy his needs. But, obviously, this is not so. GOD created the universe because he choose to do so from free will. Why HE did so is an interesting question, but I don't have all the answers. Notice, however, that not knowing the answer to a question does not nullify the question in any way. As theoretical physicist Sean Carroll once stated (I am paraphrasing here:) "it's OK not to know something".
> Justice VS Mercy. GOD is perfect Justice. GOD is also perfect Mercy. These two properties contradict each other. If person does something wrong, one can either give the person full punishment, or full mercy. Giving that person a lesser punishment would not live up to GOD’s perfection of Justice. The beauty of this argument – at least for the Christians – is that this argument shows exactly why GOD came down in human form in person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus died for our sins to pay for our sins, so that GOD can give us Perfect Mercy, while at the same time keep being Perfect Justice. For the Jews, like in Old Testament times, one would put one’s sins into an animal and pay for one’s sins in this way by killing that animal.
> Perfect GOD, yet imperfect world. If GOD existed, HE would create a perfect world. However, our world is not perfect, therefore, GOD does not exist. So this is an argument that points to the contradiction between the property of being perfect, and the property of having created a perfect world. The problem with this argument is that a perfect GOD has no obligation to ensure HIS creation is equally perfect like him. GOD can create any world, perfect or imperfect, moral or amoral (animals, btw, generally don’t act moral or immoral; they are amoral), and so on.
> Omniscience VS human experience. God knows all things; thus, if GOD exists, HE should know at least and more than what humans know. Humans know sinful feelings like adultery related lust. GOD has no lust, thus an omniscient being like GOD does not exists. The argument can be solved very easily: GOD knows how person ‘X’ feels like when he/she is feeling sinful, even though GOD has no need to “feel” it HIMSELF.
These are just seven of them. There are, of course more of these arguments, but naming more would make this post far too long. But see what the pattern is in every argument: Every time, the argument starts off with fallacious assumptions, tries to invoke an apparent contradiction while no contradiction is present. It is the same for most of the arguments in this category: find its fallacious assumptions, find whether or not there TRULY is an actual contradiction.
EVIL AND SUFFERING
This category holds all arguments that have to do with evil and suffering. Though this category lacks the logical solidness of the previous category (contradicting GOD), it has great emotional power. But this is, in a way, also it’s weakness: emotional power, no matter how powerful its affection, does not grant one the deductive power to conclude that GOD does not exist. Yet, this category is, by far, the most common reason why atheists are atheists. I used to have a few remarks here, but I now have completely moved the entire "Evil and suffering" - discussion to a separate post, which you can find on the menu on the right.
GENERAL EXPECTATIONS AND (LACK OF) EXPERIENCE
Failing in creating arguments in the category “Contradicting GOD”, some atheists, like Dr Austin Dacey (a greater defender of atheism today, although he lacks the popularity of the less philosophically astute “New Atheists”), have instead retreated to give arguments from the category of general expectations and (lack of) experience. With this category I mean the arguments that use the following form logic in their premises:
1) If GOD exists, we would expect ‘X’.
2) We do not see ‘X’.
3) Therefore GOD probably does not exist.
The idea behind these types of arguments is that, in science, one tests hypotheses by checking out if reality corresponds with one would expect. But these arguments all share the same weakness, namely that it is widely unknown what exactly to expect from a monotheistic GOD. Thus, it is very hard to determine what to expect to be different in a universe with GOD compared to a universe without GOD. Whatever our expectation we fill in for ‘X’, it will always remain nothing but sheer speculation. This category will mention a few arguments that fit this category. But first, notice that some arguments can be placed not only in this category, but also in other categories, especially the “evil and suffering”-category. There is no need to repeat overlapping arguments. If the arguments can be placed in another category, I’ll just do that. Now, allow me to give a few arguments that fit nicely in this category.
> Absence of evidence = evidence of absence. This is the most famous argument within this category. According to this argument, if GOD exists, one would expect to see more evidence of HIM than what we actually see. This argument is based on the concept of “absence of evidence is evidence for absence”. But the problem with the argument is that this concept is simply false. For example: cosmologists have no physical evidence for the Oort cloud; does that mean therefore the Oort cloud does not exist? Of course not; many cosmologists today think there is an Oort cloud, despite the fact that there is no physical evidence for it. Besides this, the argument fails more dramatically when one considers the following: There ARE a number of compelling arguments for the existence GOD: The Kalam Cosmological argument, the Neo-Leibnizian Cosmological argument, the historicity of the post-mortem experiences of Jesus of Nazareth, the Moral argument, and more. I do not see why one would expect to see more reason for GOD's existence than these arguments.
> Divine “hiddenness”. If GOD exists, one would expect HIM to ensure that everyone who can have a loving relationship with GOD believes in HIM. Instead, we find countless blameless unbelievers. Personally, I do not see how GOD would need to give a clearer revelation of HIMSELF than the beginning of the universe, the contingency of the universe, the historicity of the postmortem appearances of Jesus of Nazareth, and the large amount of existential experiences of GOD. Besides that, the argument makes a major mistake: it assumes that GOD cannot have reasons to be hidden. Yet, one could easily think of several reasons for GOD to be hidden:
1) GOD’s primary aim – at least in the Judeo-Christian sense – is to bring people to a loving relationship with HIM. A world in which GOD’s existence is undeniable may not cause more people to freely have a loving relationship with GOD.
2) An absolute knowledge of GOD’s existence may cause people to do good not because of pure-hearted morality, but for the simple price of the afterlife.
3) A clear revelation beyond reasonable doubt of GOD’s existence may severely prevent people of recognising their own darker sides when that is overshadowed by their fear of GOD.
> the success of physical science without GOD. If GOD exists, one would expect HIM to act in the world in ways that physical or empirical science(biology, physics, chemistry, etc.) must take into account. Instead, science works without GOD. The problem with this argument lies with the very nature of empirical science. Empirical science deals with strictly the physical world (the Universe), yet GOD obviously is no physical cause. Furthermore, miracles – the name ascribed to events caused by (at least in part) Divine intervention, are by definition events that cannot be produced by the laws of nature alone. Yet physical science ONLY works with phenomena that can strictly be explained without going beyond the laws of nature. In fact, when one truly thinks about it, one sees that it is far more probable that the previously named expectation should be more or less be opposite: If GOD exists one would expect HIM to create a world that functions in a regular, predictable and repeatable way, so that it is quite clear when GOD performs a miracle, and when things are like normal. For, in an irregular, unpredictable world, one could not possibly differentiate between normal day-to-day life (if that is even possible in such a chaotic world) and miracles. For example: if dead people would rise from the dead every day, what's so special about Jesus' resurrection? Notice, by the way, that this is all about explicitly physical science.
> Mind-brain connection. If GOD exists, one would expect an immaterial mind and/or soul that is entirely independent of the brain. Instead, we find no evidence for this. This argument has numerous problems. First, in the Judeo-Christian view, the mind is not necessarily independent of the body, but works with and is affected by the body and vice-versa. Secondly, the soul is practically undetectable using scientific methods, so how could one expect any scientific evidence for a soul? Thirdly, the evidence only shows there to be a strong correlation between body and mind, not dependency. Fourthly, the argument is self-defeating. For, if the mind (or soul) is entirely dependent upon the physical brain, then the mind is just the product of physical stimuli in the physical brain. But if that is the case, one cannot truly verify one’s own logical thinking, in which case this very argument cannot be justified. Thus, if the argument is true, logical thinking is impossible, but if logical thinking is impossible, the argument cannot be called “true”. And finally, the argument assumes that the existence of GOD means the existence of immaterial minds. But this is not the case, for there are philosophers of religion who are both Christians and also have a materialistic view of the mind and body (example: Peter Van Inwagen).
> evolution. If GOD exists, one would expect evolution to have a goal or purpose, and evolution to be efficient. Yet, we find that evolution is random, purposeless, and extremely inefficient. The problem with this argument is that it is impossible to determine whether or not evolution has “a goal”. We cannot ‘interview’ natural selection, or mutations. As for evolution being inefficient, efficiency is only important for an entity with limited time and/or resources. But GOD has no reason to worry about time or resources, obviously.
> a better world. Some say that if GOD exists, HE would surely have created a better world where the maximum number of people would freely choose to accept GOD while requiring much less evil than in this world. But this is, like many expectation, just SHEER speculation. We do not even know if those “better” worlds are even feasible, let alone truly practically possible. But see my post on whether God is good for more on this.
Many atheist philosophers are aware of this problem, and thus create a different argument:
Why would GOD create a world in which earth quakes and volcanic eruptions, fire, and so on are required for life? Well, one could say that this is the result of the laws of nature. Here an atheist could jump up and say “Well one would expect GOD to create a universe with different laws, right?!” But this is an even greater problem, for no one has a clue how a universe which operates according to different laws would be like. The statement would simply be sheer speculation.
ARGUMENTS FOR EXPLANATORY SCOPE AND POWER:
Richard Dawkins often said that the GOD hypothesis (or “designer hypothesis”) is a false one because then you have to ask the question “who designed the designer?” This is but a form of a much broader, often used argument for atheism. It goes as follows: GOD is not a good explanation for the existence, or any of the properties, of the universe, because that requires an explanation of HOW and WHY GOD does whatever HE does. The basic idea is that in order to argue that GOD's existence or actions explain a certain fact or event, one needs to give an explanation underlying this explanation. This basic idea is a false one, and its falsehood is immensely obvious to any serious thinker. Nonetheless, I shall explain here why the argument is broken.
In any form of rational explanations, in order to recognise a certain explanation is the best, you do NOT need an explanation for that explanation. Otherwise, one would destroy all bodies of rational explanation seeking, for there are always unknowns, there are always explanations missing for previous explanations. What follows is a hypothetical story to show what, for example, science would be like if one would demand there to be an explanation for the explanation:
Illustration:
Imagine that a scientist has just discovered that physical materials are generally build from molecules, and that this scientist presents the evidence to the scientific community. Using the broken logic that was used in the argument in question, the scientific community would respond by saying: "And what is the explanation behind molecules? Where do they come from? How are they formed? What keeps them bounded and stable? Do Newton's laws still apply to such a small scale?"...etc. In other words: what is the explanation behind the given explanation? The scientist in this scenario will say "I don't know". The scientific community would then say, using the broken logic: "well, since you do not have an explanation for the explanation, we cannot accept this explanation".
Now, suppose the scientist comes back a few years later, and found out the explanation behind molecules. See here how this dialogue between the scientist and the scientific community would have gone if the broken logic of the argument in question would have been used. Scientist: "I have found the explanation behind molecules: atoms!" Scientific community: "And what is the explanation behind atoms? Where do they come from? How are they formed? What keeps them bounded and stable? Do Newton's laws still apply to such a small scale?" Scientist: "I do not yet know". Scientific community: "well, since you do not have an explanation for the explanation, we cannot accept this explanation".
Years later, the same scientist comes back. And this time, the scientist made sure to figure out more. See how this goes: Scientist: "I have found the explanation behind atoms: protons and neutrons and electrons! But wait! I have more: protons and neutrons consist of quarks! So here, I have an explanation for the explanation!" Scientific community: "Very well. But what is the explanation behind quarks, then? Where do THEY come from? How are they formed? What keeps them stable? Do Newton's laws still apply to such a small scale?"(etc.) Scientist: "How could I possibly know that already? Is this not enough? Surely there will always be unknowns in science!". Scientific community: "well, we are sorry, but since you do not have an explanation for the explanation, and an explanation for that previous explanation, we cannot accept this explanation".
Conclusion:
One sees, I hope, the flaw in demanding and explanation for the explanation: There will ALWAYS be unknowns, and thus the most underlying explanation will ALWAYS lack an explanation for the explanation. This is so tremendously obvious, I do not see why I spent so much time on this. In short: in order to recognise a certain explanation as the best, one does not require an explanation for the explanation. Thus, in order to recognise GOD as the explanation for the existence of the universe or any of the peculiar aspects of the universe, one does not need an explanation for that explanation. HOW GOD creates things is not a relevant issue for the question whether HE exists or not, nor for the question whether HE can do certain things or not..
“WHAT IF” - ARGUMENTS
“What if” – arguments are arguments that try to speculate about reality itself, in order to question EVERYTHING – theism and atheism and everything else. Do note that these arguments do not refute the existence of GOD, nor do they support atheism. They only support doubt about everything. These types of arguments are used by all manner of people, including theists and atheists. Some are truly in a state of metaphysical doubt, while others are just trying to find a way out of the theism-atheism debate. So here are a few.
> What if maybe our concepts of existence, causation, etc. are all wrong? I rely here on rational intuition. I trust that we can generally trust our senses, and similarly we can trust our most elementary founding understanding of reality, like the concepts of existence and causation, and so on. If one is in doubt "how" GOD can exist or "how" HE can cause things, I say: the details of GOD's existence are irrelevant to accept HIS existence as the best explanation for reality. If one is in doubt about the reality of the universe, I say: our understanding of causation and existence of the universe is perfectly fine, as science proves every day. If that is wrong, all of science is wrong, and we are doomed. Even if we can “doubt” some concepts, the truthfulness of our concepts are more probably true than not. The important thing, is that we rely on rational intuition, even in matters as great as GOD and the universe. If we cannot trust even our most basic understanding of reality - like our understanding of existence and causation - all forms of philosophy and metaphysics is wrong, and we are all doomed. Luckily, this is highly improbable.
> What if nothing truly exists? It is impossible for someone to state that nothing exists. After all: who is denying existence? As Descartes said: Cogito ergo sum (I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am); with other words: it is metaphysically impossible to deny one’s own existence. And since at least YOU exist, it is impossible for anyone to deny the existence of truly everything.
> What if all of logic is just nonsense? Without logic, there is no sense in anything at all. The argument: “If logic is nonsense, we cannot trust/use logic” is argument that refutes logic. But all arguments require logic, including this one, making this argument self-refuting.
> Logic has never been tested outside of the universe, and thus what if logic doesn’t work outside the universe? First of all, logic is not a matter of testing and cannot be tested. Testing logic is circular reasoning since any form of testing procedure pre-supposes logic in the first place. Second, demoting logic by making a comparison between two situations in which logic may apply, is a comparison based on logical inference. I.e. using logic to verify logic, which is self-refuting.
POPULAR DECEPTIVE ARGUMENTS
With “deceptive arguments” I mean arguments that are patently false, or are entertainingly anti-theistic but still do not prove atheism nor disprove theism, while at the same time still convince large crowds of lay-men of atheism. For this reason, these arguments can be called “deceptive”. Indeed, in some cases – though absolutely not all cases – these arguments are even deceptive in the sense that one of their premises are based on a lies. Many of the arguments in this category are trade-mark arguments of the so-called “New Atheism”, especially popular among teenagers and young adults (like myself).
> Biblical inerrancy. Some atheists, apparently, seem to think that by showing contradictions in the Bible they have disproven Judaism, Christianity, or even monotheism as a whole. This, however, is quite naïve. Biblical inerrancy does not hurt monotheism or even Judaism/Christianity. Biblical inerrancy is not part of the mainstream Christian theology that is universally accepted by Christians. In fact, when doing normal historical research, historians EXPECT there to be some inerrancy between historical documents (especially in ancient documents). After all, one witness may see a think differently than another, and some simply present things differently. Thus, the “anti-Biblical-inerrancy” does not hurt the philosophical truthhood or falsehood of theism.
> Blibical immorality. A common argument among atheists is that GOD does not exist because the Bible / Quran / whatever other religious book is disgustingly immoral. While I disagree with the statement that the Bible is immoral, let's just for the sake of the argument assume that indeed the Bible is the most disgusting, most immoral, most intolerable, and most sickening piece of literature to have ever risen in the entirety of human history. So what?! Are we to presume that GOD's existence, an entity possibly linked to the fundamentals of reality, linked to logic, is dependent upon some insane scribbles? Did the creation of the Bible or the Quran, or whatever other text bend the supreme laws of logic? Of course not! GOD's existence can only be determined properly using philosophy. Whatever stories us pathetic humans write about GOD is utterly irrelevant for the question of GOD's existence.
> who designed the designer (part of the Dawkins' "ultimate Boeing 747 gambit"). According to Richard Dawkins, the GOD hypothesis (or “designer hypothesis”) is a false one because then you have to ask the question “who designed the designer?” This is part of Richard Dawkin’s “Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit” (AKA the reverse-design argument). The “who designed the designer” objection fails for at least two reasons. First, as any scientists knows, in order to recognize a certain explanation is the best, you do not an explanation for that explanation. Otherwise, one would destroy science, for there are always unknows, there are always explanations missing for previous explanations. This should be very obvious (see section "arguments for explanatory power"), that I was just stunned this objection. Perhaps Dawkins does not take himself very seriously. Anyways, unto the next problem: Second, to ask “who designed the designer” assumes a designed designer, a created GOD. But, as John Lennox pointed out in his debate with Richard Dawkins, created gods are by-definition a delusion. GOD, by defnition, is beyond time, space and matter. And, as was shown in the Kalam cosmological argument (see previous blog posts), anything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. But GOD (an eternal being), does not have a beginning. This also creates a question for Richard Dawkins: If he has problems with that which is eternal, what, then, created the universe? For the universe is not eternal and thus has a cause. This brings me to Richard Dawkin’s next objection.
> GOD is more complex than the universe (also part of Dawkins' "ultimate Boeing 747 gambit"). According to Richard Dawkins, GOD is infinitely more complex than the universe or anything in the universe. This position has three mistakes.
1) It assumes that complexity must always come from simplicity. But this is not what one sees in science. As John Lennox (again) pointed out in one of his debate with Richard Dawkins, an apple falling is a simple event, but Newton’s laws describing and explaining this event is much more complex and stretches the minds of many; more complex still, Einstein’s equations is stretching the minds of the cleverest. So the idea that complexity must always come from simplicity is just untrue.
2) It assumes that GOD is complex. This is false, at least in the Judeo-Christian sense. GOD is described as Love, as Logos, as the Locus, and so on. As William Lane Craig puts it, GOD is an un-embodied mind, and conceptually utterly simple. Richard Dawkins, however, claims GOD is at least more complex than the universe because it created and possible stabilises the universe. GOD must think of everything in the universe. However, as William Lane Craig noted, a simple entity, like a mind, can have very complex thoughts. That does not make the mind more complex.
3) It assumes that simplicity is the only thing that matters. But explanatory power and scope also matters. After all: the simplest explanation, strictly speaking, is just the absence of an explanation, and the second-simplest answer I suppose would be "GOD did it", which I am sure Dawkins would not like at all.
> the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. The previous two paragraphs (third and fourth), dealt with premise three and six of Richard Dawkins’ ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. If one or more premises of an argument fails, the argument itself is logically invalid. Therefore, it follows logically that Dawkins' ultimate Boeing 7477 gambit argument fails.
> mechanism disposes off agent. Some atheists, like Richard Dawkins and even a philosophy professor like Herman Phillipse, seem to have a weird idea of the relation between science and theism: They are at war! They seem to think that as scientific explanations increase, (mono)theistic philosophy necessrily decreases. But this a classic case of confusing mechanism with agency. To give an example John Lennox often gives: What explains the Galaxy Ford (an automobile)? The materials and natural laws that are necessary that make a car? Or Henry Ford? Well you need both: Mechanisms do not dispose of agents, and agents do not dispose of mechanisms, they are NOT mutually exclusive.
_
And with this I would like to end this article. Hope you enjoyed reading this blog post.