Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Does God Exist?
Actually one answer is correct from either of two opposing states (existence and non-existence),
with only three basic knowledge-based responses (“Yes,” “No,” and “I don’t know!”).
We can play the burden-of-proof game until we’re blue in the face—the theist demands
that the atheist prove God does not exist, the atheist demands that the theist prove
that He does, and the agnostic requiring proof of both of their claims!
THE BURDEN-OF-PROOF GAME!
The burden of proof game is a game that many seem intent on playing—the theist witholds
from making claims about God’s existence in conversation, the atheist deliberately
avoids articulating his philosophical stance as a denial of the existence of God, and the
agnostic seeks comfort in an “I don’t know!” with the possibility of remaining
ignorant and being apathetic towards truth.
Well, that’s not the route I take! See my video: “GOD IS: Evidence for the Existence
of God.”
Let’s now turn our attention to alleged disproofs of God and the type of arguments
one is most likely to encounter.
01) ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
1) I see no evidence for God. 2) This is my personal experience.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
01) RESPONSE
The fact that you see no evidence for God does not mean that God does not exist.
02) ARGUMENT FROM MORAL DISCOMFORT
1) God provides a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
2) The idea of a God issuing moral imperatives is repugnant.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
02) RESPONSE
If the idea of God issuing moral imperatives arouses feelings of moral discomfort, then
those feelings do not make the alternative true.
03) ARGUMENT FROM EVIL
1) If God is all good, He would defeat evil. 2) If God is all powerful, He could defeat
evil. 3) Evil is not yet defeated.
4) Therefore, God does not exist.
03) RESPONSE
Evil not yet being defeated does not mean that an all good and all powerful God does
not exist but would suggest that, if such a God exists, one day evil will be defeated.
04) ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
1) Natural theories adequately explain the development of religion.
2) God is not required to explain the phenomenon that people are religious.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
04) RESPONSE
Even if natural theories adequately explain the development of religion, that would have
no bearing on the existence or nonexistence of God.
05) ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
1) An omnipotent God would provide sufficient evidence for every person to know He exists.
2) Not everyone claims to know that God exists. 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
05) RESPONSE
God may have provided sufficient evidence for every person to know He exists, but that
does not mean that all have seriously examined the case for God’s existence, nor would
such evidence necessarily affect one’s willingness to serve God.
06) ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER
1) ‘Answered prayers’ are coincidences. 2) ‘Unanswered prayers’ show that a Sovereign
God does not have to bow to the dictates of subordinate man.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
06) RESPONSE
If all ‘answered prayers’ are viewed as coincidences, then there is no way to determine
whether prayers are answered. ‘Unanswered prayers’ would also indicate that a Sovereign
God does not have to bow to the dictates of subordinate man.
07) ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY
1) Many people have strong doubts concerning the existence of God.
2) This shows that people have been grasping for the same truth.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
07) RESPONSE
The rejection of an entity’s existence does not in and of itself indicate that people
have been grasping for the reality of the entity’s nonexistence.
08) ARGUMENT FROM PROBABILITY
1) There are many claims which assert the existence of historical gods.
2) Any god, including the one a theist believes in as the only true God, is a historical god.
3) Theists believe this too! 4) Hence, by mere probability, a theistic
God does not exist.
08) RESPONSE
A theist’s denial of all other deities except his own does not, by any probability, negate
the existence of the deity he accepts as the one true God.
09) ARGUMENT FROM RELIGION
1) Many religions claim a deity or set of deities.
2) These varying ideas cannot all possibly be true.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
09) RESPONSE
Varying divine revelations do not indicate that no gods exist but may suggest that only
one such revelation is true and complete.
10) ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
1) Most religions throughout history have now been regarded as untrue or incorrect.
2) All religions will eventually be regarded as untrue or incorrect.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
10) RESPONSE
Given the exclusivity of many religious writings, it would be of no surprise to any religious
practitioner whose religion has not yet been disproven that other religions have been discovered
untrue.
11) THE RICHARD DAWKINS’ ARGUMENT
1) You are an atheist with respect to all other gods.
2) You are also gay with respect to your same-sex best friend.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
11) RESPONSE
Being an atheist with respect to all other gods does not make one an atheist any more
than being gay with respect to one’s same-sex best friend makes one gay. In fact an atheist
denies, disbelieves, and/or lacks belief in ALL deities which, coincidentally, may make
a cat, a computer, or a cocoon an atheist.
12) ARGUMENT FROM INVISIBILITY
1) God is invisible and has invisible attributes. 2) I cannot see an invisible God nor directly
observe God’s invisible attributes. 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
12) RESPONSE
Not because you cannot see an invisible God nor directly observe God’s invisible attributes
does it mean that God does not exist.
13) ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE NECESSITY
1) A perfect God never lacked love. 2) A perfect God created in order to love.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
13) RESPONSE
God never lacked love and did not create in order to love. Rather, God the Father loved
God the Son before the foundation of the world.
14) ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE
1) God is perfect and omnipotent. 2) God’s perfections preclude the execution
of certain acts that diminish God’s power or perfection.
3) Therefore, a perfect and omnipotent God does not exist.
14) RESPONSE
The inability of God to execute certain acts that diminish His power or perfection does
not constitute a lack of power.
15) ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE OMNISCIENCE
1) It is impossible not to choose what you will choose.
2) God knows what you will choose. 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
15) RESPONSE
If it is impossible not to choose what you will choose, how does God’s foreknowledge
affect that choice?
16) ARGUMENT FROM FREE CHOICE
1) Imagine God does not exist. 2) It REMAINS impossible not to choose what
you will choose. 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
16) RESPONSE
If God does not exist, it REMAINS impossible not to choose what you will choose. How, then,
can God’s foreknowledge be responsible for your choice?
17) ARGUMENT FROM NATURE
1) The natural world is all there is. 2) Direct observation of the natural world
can reveal this. 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
17) RESPONSE
Direct observation of the natural world cannot show that whatever cannot be directly observed
does not exist.
18) ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY
1) Both complexity and the perception of it requires intelligence.
2) God is complex and therefore must require intelligence.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
18) RESPONSE
God is intelligent and accounts for complexity and the perception of it while impersonal
forces do not.
19) ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
1) A perfect creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2) Lifeforms seem to exhibit suboptimal design. 3) It is uncertain what God could have had
in mind and whether the appearance of suboptimality was an intentional trade-off to improve overall
optimal design. 4) Therefore, God does not exist.
19) RESPONSE
How can one charge a perfect creator God with suboptimal design while being uncertain what
God could have had in mind and whether the appearance of suboptimality was not an intentional
trade-off to improve overall optimal design?
20) ARGUMENT FROM COSMOLOGY
1) The universe is a colossal waste of space and energy.
2) The anthropic principle acknowledges that the universe is conditioned for life on earth.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
20) RESPONSE
If the universe is conditioned for life on earth, as the anthropic principle acknowledges,
then the universe cannot be a colossal waste of space and energy.
21) ARGUMENT FROM THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
1) “Energy can neither be created or destroyed.” 2) Scientists have observed this!
3) God created energy since He created the material universe.
4) Therefore, God does not exist.
21) RESPONSE
The First Law of Thermodynamics, induced from empirically observed evidence, refers to energy
transfer as work and / or heat and observes the principle of conservation of energy which
results in the rendering, “In a closed system, energy is neither created nor destroyed, but
is transformed from one form to another.” This law deals with the transformation of
energy and says nothing about the origination of energy.
22) ARGUMENT FROM THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
1) If thermodynamic work is to be done at a finite rate, free energy must be expended.
2) In the material universe, energy is being transformed into unusable heat.
3) The laws of physics break down at the big *** singularity.
4) Therefore, God does not exist.
22) RESPONSE
In the material universe, energy is being transformed into unusable heat. Since all
the energy in the material universe has not been transformed into unusable heat, the material
universe could not have been eternal. If the laws of physics break down at the big ***
singularity, non-physical law(s) must have been in operation.
23) THE OCKHAM’S RAZOR ARGUMENT
1) The Ockham’s Razor principle states that “causes should not be multiplied without
necessity.” 2) Postulating multiple invisible universes
is a much simpler explanation than positing a God to ultimately account for the existence
of our universe. 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
23) RESPONSE
Postulating multiple invisible universes is NOT a much simpler explanation than positing
a God to ultimately account for the existence of our universe. Postulating multiple invisible
universes violates the Ockham’s Razor principle because it multiplies causes without necessity.
24) SCIENCE-OF-THE-GAPS HYPOTHESIS
1) Science explains the natural world. 2) Whatever is unexplainable currently will
one day be scientifically explained. 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
24) RESPONSE
The assumption, “Whatever is unexplainable currently will one day be scientifically explained,”
is a dogmatic assertion that everything can be scientifically explained and unjustifiably
excludes the inability of science to explain all of reality.
25) THE BURDEN OF PROOF ARGUMENT
1) The burden of proof lies with the claimant. 2) No proof can be presented for the existence
of God. 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
25) RESPONSE
It is one thing to say that the burden of proof lies with the claimant; it is quite
another not to be willing to consider any evidence that may be presented for the existence
of God.
26) ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE REVELATION
1) If God exists, all would have access to His divine revelation.
2) All do not have access to God’s divine revelation.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
26) RESPONSE
All may not have access to God’s specific revelation, but all have access to God’s
general revelation.
27) ARGUMENT FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION
1) Temporal sins against an eternally righteous God will be punished eternally.
2) Penalty for those sins against an eternally righteous God have been met through the person
of Jesus Christ. 3) I choose to pay for my own sin.
4) Therefore, God does not exist.
27) RESPONSE
If the penalty for temporal sins against an eternally righteous God have been met through
the person of Jesus Christ, and you choose to pay for your own sin, then you are choosing
to pay for those sins eternally.
28) ARGUMENT FROM EXCLUSIVITY AND INTOLERANCE
1) Jesus claimed to be “the way.” 2) This is exclusive and intolerant, and I
will not ‘tolerate’ it! 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
28) RESPONSE
Jesus’ claim to be “the way” is as exclusive as truth is, and this exclusivity is not unique
to biblical Christianity. If Jesus’ claim to be “the way” is ‘intolerant,’ then
so is any opposing view because, in the least, it would exclude Jesus’ claim to be “the
way.”
These arguments are found to be wanting and there is yet a convincing case to be made
against the existence of God.
What are some evidence for the existence of God?
One may argue that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” though
it is not apparent why this is so. Can we, in like fashion, argue intelligently that
“Skeptical claims require skeptical evidence,” “Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence,”
or “Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence”? Certainly not! If one claims
that their evidence for God is supernatural, or outrageous, or skeptical, why should an
ordinary person accept as true such extraordinary evidence? I contend that “Extraordinary
claims require ordinary evidence,” for this is how a rational individual and a wholehearted
seeker deals with evidence presented in support of any claim.
A recent temptation is to ask the question, “Which god?” This does nothing to challenge
the view that a being called “God” exists.
The realities of our existence, our consciousness, and the fact that moral evil exists is enough
to provide evidence for the existence of an everlasting and eternal, self-existent, omnipresent,
united, good, just, omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, creative, intelligent, personal,
and Supreme Being.
The claim may, then, be made that various gods of differing religions fit those criteria.
Could you list 5 religions whose “God” fits those criteria?
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Santeria, voodoo, Shinto, Taoism, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Sikhism, Sufism?
Which “God” fits those criteria?
God is an everlasting and eternal, self-existent, omnipresent, united, good, just, omniscient,
unchanging, omnipotent, creative, intelligent, personal, and Supreme Being. These are attributes
of God that can be deduced through reasoning by considering the reality of our existence,
embracing the reality of evil, and reflecting on the observance of complexity in reality,
without turning a page in the Bible or any “sacred writing.”
I have provided support for the existence of such a being in my video entitled “GOD
IS: Evidence for the Existence of God” located at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLD_Qi4kPg0
You
may attempt to demonstrate a flaw in my arguments with the intent of showing how the being uncovered
there amounts to anything less than “God.”
A few avenues of approach are possible here: the first is to pinpoint critical errors in
the reasoning process that diminishes the being’s status to less than “God,” the
second is to show that this being cannot be “God” but must be something other, and
the third is to demonstrate that there is an internal inconsistency among the listed
attributes.
To demonstrate that there is a contradiction between two statements, it is not sufficient
to simply state them. One must be able to show what it is about the statements that
cause them to contradict. For example, one may cite Matthew 2:11 and Luke 2:7 as contradictory
accounts, but to demonstrate that they contradict each other one may go on to say that since
Luke 2:7 states “And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling
cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn” and
Matthew 2:11 states “And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with
Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures,
they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh,” the accounts must be contradictory
ones because “the young Child” cannot be in “a manger” and in “the house”
at the same time and in the same sense. The only problem here is that these two scripture
verses do not, in fact, contradict each other since the “Babe” was “lying in a manger”—not
sinning, mind you—and “the young Child” was in “the house,” for some time transpired
after “she brought forth her firstborn Son” (Luke 2:7) and “the shepherds…came with
haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger” (Luke 2:15, 16) and before
“wise men from the East…had come into the house” and “saw the young Child with
Mary His mother” (Matthew 2:1, 11).
If one claims that I have used the Bible to prove the Bible, one must, after establishing
that the Bible has been used, show how it has been used to prove the Bible.
The final anticipated straw is to fail to make a distinction between ‘evidence’
and ‘empirical evidence.’ If ‘empirical’ means ‘evidence,’ then what does ‘empirical
evidence’ mean? ‘Empirical evidence’ isn’t the only form of evidence there is.
I have met the skeptic’s burden of proof in my video “GOD IS: Evidence for the Existence
of God” located at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLD_Qi4kPg0
Now, the ball is in your court.
If atheism is a lack of belief (in God, a god, or gods), then laziness is a lack of
choice (in activity, action or actions). If atheism is a lack of belief, then laziness
is a lack of choice.
Does God exist?