The Argument Against God

In recent years I have become increasingly interested in Christian apologetics, primarily in the area of arguments both for and against the existence of God, of which there are some well thought out, very precise arguments offered. In looking at the various arguments, most of the arguments that are pro-God are based in observations of the natural world: its regularity, stability, and level of organization. These are sound arguments that often leave atheist arguments on the same issues very weakened or outright dead in the water. What makes the arguments so powerful is that the arguments don’t assume that the God to which they conclude is the God of the Bible. That is an entirely separate argument for them to make, arguments that sometimes fall flat simply because they just don’t have the power and appeal that many arguments against that God which have great emotional appeal because they are based in the immediate happenings of life.

Most of these arguments against God, appear to go thusly:
A. If there is a God and this God is all knowing and all powerful.
B. This God, possessing such qualities, would be able to bring about a world where pain and suffering would not exist.
C. The world is replete with pain and suffering.
D. Therefore such a God does not exist.

It’s a straightforward argument that deals with every day issues that people are forced to deal with daily: the problem of evil. This is not a fully formulated argument, it is representative of the basis of many of the arguments that one can and will encounter in the growing onslaught of radical atheism and anti-theism.

The problem with the argument about the issue is two-fold: it seems to deny that pain has a purpose and that “evil” is left undefined. One might ask, are such clarifications necessary? The answer is a resounding, YES. Think about it and we’ll see about considering them in the next few posts.


  1. “These are sound arguments that often leave atheist arguments on the same issues very weakened or outright dead in the water.”

    Only if you start by believing in god in the first place. Otherwise, you will notice that all of these arguments have been pretty much destroyed – that just doesn’t keep apologetics from repeating them. The important thing to notice is, that apologetics is not intended to convince people into believing. It only is intended to give people who already believe the illusion of rationality, the feeling that their belief is justified by logic and not something they simply inherited from their parents.

    • Then, I should take your comment as an illusion? I shouldn’t assume that you have a mind capable of rational thought? Maybe it’s all in my mind…wait, is that an illusion?

      • Why should you assume that? You don’t need to. If I have a mind or not is totally unimportant for an argument. You can decide if an argument is valid without knowing if I have a mind or just repeat things written down elsewhere.

      • It, of course, depends on what you mean by “argument”. If you just mean a random exchange of words, in a disrespectful or angry manner, then, one could suppose that a mind is not necessary, or even irrelevant. But if you mean it in the classic, philosophical sense, where two opposing ideas are presented, questioned, and reasoned upon, strictly on the basis of the construct of such a thing as an “idea”, you must necessarily have a mind, a rational, reasoning mind, in order to not only construct the argument, but to propose and answer questions to the opposing party.
        But, if you and I are merely copying what has been stated elsewhere, which is the basis of the most elementary type of learning (rote), then we are merely on a journey to a place where true though might occur, unless we are merely trapped in the cycle Qoholet mentions, “that there is nothing new under the sun”.

      • No, I don’t. It’s enough that you think that YOU have, then you can consider the letters (that might have been put together totally randomly) as an idea opposing to yours (but only, because these letters form that sense to you, not because I have added them together with that meaning in mind, as I perhaps have none).

        So, in other words, an argument does not need two minds. You can argue with yourself, by using your mind to pitch two ideas against each other. Where you get your ideas from is another question and doesn’t need another mind, too.

        So, if you want, you can consider me as something that generates random letters that may or may not give you ideas.

      • That’s entirely possible. Skeptically, I have to assume that you are indeed possessive of reasonable faculties, simply for the fact that I am taking time to reply, because that is the commonly expected practice.
        But, you do raise an interesting psychological derived question: isn’t a person who argues with himself/herself technically “of two minds”, just in the strict sense of the matter especially in light of the whole conscious/unconscious mind as to why people do some of the things they do.
        Also, I could consider you as something that generates random letters, but that is not reasonable since random letters are rarely, if ever coherent, take for example this string:
        sdl;wdrbfb;ur;frwrbh;urhuwhfuhwrh2840uy84hyerhfohwerfhw389y284hfhhwehf8h[hw8r08wrh824h82y[8ry204hehf4hf0f[h4fh4[fh[h24802–random letters, numbers and punctuation marks that are meaningless, incoherent in the English language. They do not stimulate ideas because the mind cannot see a pattern that would make them mean anything. So, even if I desired for you to be such a thing, alas, you cannot be.

      • Well, I have to disagree: I COULD be a very “lucky” random letter generator. The mere fact that it’s unlikely doesn’t make it impossible. But, as you already pointed out, it’s reasonable to assume that I am not.

        Anyway, I don’t think that being of “two mind” is required for one to argue with himself, because, after all, looking at arguments, weighting them in your mind and decide, which one has the biggest merit for a situation and thus should be used to decide it, is something we do sometimes, all of us (but of course, I assume you are aware, that most decisions probably have nothing to do with such rational thoughts but are only justified by them retroactively later on). So, I think, one mind is enough to do so.

      • Mmm…nope, because you just gave affirmative evidence that you indeed have a mind because you just disagreed. But, let us examine what you said about the thing called. “luck”. The case just became undone due to the nature of necessary coherence. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet, and some million words. The potential for permutations to render just a coherent three letter word like “ape” is in the hundreds of thousands, if I remember the math. That is just a three letter word. Now, to render a word like xylophone, I think the math puts it in the millions, if letters were falling from a sack that contained enough letters to comprise every word in the English language. That is just one word. To get to a meaningful sentence, the math is simply beyond reasonable consideration. But, none of that matters without a mind to consider them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s