Answering Weaker Arguments for Atheism

The following I mean in the most charitable way possible. I am sure many atheists who say these things are well-meaning. The following arguments which I will debunk are simply the ones atheists usually only use as standalone arguments if they are amateurs at this thing (while an experienced atheist debater, in my opinion, would first bring up different ones).

“Atheism isn’t a claim, since we are not believing in something. I do not need a reason for not believing in God.”

This is an attempt at re-defining atheism. Traditionally, the question in mind has always been: Does God exist? The theist says: yes. The atheist says: no. The agnostic says: I could not say, sir. There may be such a Power beyond us and there may not. The agnostic says this, of course, in an English accent, copying Jeeves’ accent particularly. To say that there is no God is a claim, a very great one at that. Do atheists have to produce evidence of their own that there specifically is no God? Not exactly, but they must show all theistic arguments to be inconclusive. Atheists sometimes insist that no one can really “prove” the existence of God. First of all, what is it to prove? Should we be ninety percent sure? Ninety-five? Ninety-nine? Second, he still brings forth a very big claim. An atheist who says this must debunk the arguments from cause, motion, necessity, design, perfection, Absolute Goods, and miracles. Otherwise, although theists have the burden of proof, they have given it. For instance, technically those who believe in the moon landing technically have the burden of proof, but we might still ask why someone does not, as the apparent evidence is so obvious.

“There are so many gods in which people believe: Vishnu, Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Aton, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and others, along with Christ. I therefore only believe in one less god than you do.”

Actually, this is not true. For one thing, we are arguing particularly for the monotheistic God, which limits things very much. Still, this is not a good reason to be an atheist. Most scholars think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare’s plays, but people are not of one mind. So imagine if someone were to say: “Well, some people deeply believe that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare’s plays, and others Christopher Marlowe and still others Edward de Vere or Sir Francis Bacon. Now I will believe that no one wrote Shakespeare’s plays. See, I believe in only one less playwright than anyone else.” This argument obviously is absurd. Obviously someone must have written Shakespeare’s plays since they exist. So also someone must have made the universe by the very fact that it does exist, although precisely who did it is disputed. An atheist would say that we know playwrights exist but we do not know God exists. However, that is not the point and this argument therefore does not affect the original question at hand. Furthermore, the scholars, when they decide who wrote Shakespeare’s plays, do not arbitrarily choose someone (usually William Shakespeare), but they pick which one is most credible. Hence I pick Christ.

“It is true that many things about the universe are unknown, but this is hardly a reason to suppose, since you cannot explain everything yet, that God must have done it.”

This last one is an appeal to the so-called “God-in-the-gaps” fallacy. The problem is that this disproves atheism just as much. A claim is falsifiable if evidence can be presented to disprove it. For instance, evolutionary theory could be falsified by the discovery of modern animals that were fossilized in ancient rock layers. The belief that that the Gospel of John was not written until the year 150 A.D. or later was falsified by the discovery of manuscript P52 of the Gospel of John, which is dated to the early second century. So scientifically speaking, for atheism to be falsified, we must prove that God exists. But even if some spectacular miracle with God appearing in the sky were to occur, this could be considered a “God in the gaps”. I am willing to bet that before long skeptics would just say that it was a result of mass hysteria, partly because miracles so spectacular have occurred at other times and they have said the same. Obviously in this case if a saint were to miraculously heal a leper, the claim that we do not know how he did it does not follow that God did it, according to the same premises. In this case, no amount of evidence can really falsify the “God in the gaps” objection. As noted, the claim “There is no God” is an actual claim which can be falsified in spite of the fact that it is a negative, just as the view “There are no aliens” can be falsified.