Here is a catalog of many simple objections to the existence of God that do not deserve individual articles.
- There is no evidence for the existence of God
- Why not also believe in Santa Clause or the Flying Spagetti Monster?
- Who Made God, or Who Designed the Designer?
- Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?
- Occam’s razor dictates that other explanations should be favored over God
- No need for “God of the gaps” because science will find explanations
- Different religions effectively refute each other
There is no evidence for the existence of God
First, there is evidence for the existence of God, which is why the former atheist luminary Antony Flew became a deist. The discovery of the Big Bang naturally leads to the question “what caused the Big Bang to happen?” turns out to be a challenging question for atheists, and leads to the Kalam cosmological argument. The realization that if the laws of the universe were even slightly different then life would be impossible leads to a cosmological design argument. Atheists have generally adopted the position that they believe in countless billions of other universes that we cannot see to explain this apparent fine tuning.
Secondly, why do Christians need evidence? We all have beliefs that we accept without evidence. For example, we all believe that when a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it, it still makes a sound. We all believe that we perceive the color “red” in the same way. We all believe that the world around is real, and not a clever illusion while we are plugged into a virtual reality chamber (or haunted by an evil demon). These are just a few examples of many. Furthermore, the belief that “all beliefs require evidence” is self-refuting philosophy since there is no evidence for that belief itself.
Why not also believe in Santa Clause or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
This is essentially the same as the objection that there is no evidence for the existence of God and could be addressed the same way. However, it adds a edge that should perhaps be addressed. The moral argument is a good way to do this.
If there are no objective ethical truths, then slavery and genocide are just matters of personal opinion. And if atheism is true then there are no objective ethical truths (if there are, where are they? The moon? Outer Space?). So as long as atheists believe in invisible ethical truths, why don’t they also believe in Santa Claus? And here’s the kicker: Christians can make a far more powerful case for the existence of God than atheists can for objective ethical truths.
Who Made God, or Who Designed the Designer?
No one made God. God has always existed, since before time itself existed. If that explanation seems too convenient, then realize that this was also the preferred secular answer to “who made the universe?” until the Big Bang forced us to reject the idea of an eternal universe. This leads directly into a powerful argument for the existence of God, the Kalam cosmological argument.
Occam’s razor dictates that we should prefer any theory, no matter how strange, to an omnipotent, omniscient Creator
There is some truth to this argument, but if taken too far it makes atheism non-falsifiable. Rigidly adhering to this view of Occam’s razor also leads to ridiculous conclusions. For example, the atheist Fred Hoyle was led to suppose that space aliens created the first life forms on earth because abiogenesis - the creation of life from non-living matter - is so improbable. Space aliens are not infinite quantities like God, so perhaps they would be preferred by Occams razor in this respect. But space aliens are also very kludgy and ad-hoc. No one advanced that view until after the discover of the complex nature of DNA.
That is only the creation of the first life form. When you start getting into physics, such as the cosmological design argument, you are forced into even weirder positions, such as the belief in a potentially infinite number of other universes that we can never see. So even a rigid view of Occam’s razor breaks down.
But the reason why Occam’s razor works is because we expect that complex phenomena have simple explanations. A God who made a rational universe according to ordered mathematical structures fits very nicely into Occam’s razor. But many ad-hoc explanations, such as space aliens, do not.
Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?
There are many things that God cannot do. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). God cannot sin. But these do not mean that God is not omnipotent, or that the concept of God is incoherent. Instead it shows that people misunderstand the nature of omnipotence.
God’s omnipotence means that there are not external constraints on what God can do. But there are still internal constraints - limits on God’s power that come from God Himself. One of those internal constraints is God’s omnibenevolence. Since God is all-loving He cannot commit an evil act. The very nature of being omnipotent imposes an internal constraint: making a boulder too heavy to lift.
No need for “God of the gaps” because science will find explanations
Most objection to the existence of God begs the question. It uses circular logic by assuming what it purports to prove. It can be paraphrased as “God does not exist because someday we will prove that God does not exist.”
Atheists might make an inductive case by claiming that since science has consistently been overturning superstition, that this process will continue. That would be an effective argument against a pagan religion which holds that lightning is created by Thor, and good harvests are the result of Demeter. But Christianity does not make similar claims. God performed one act of creation that has since been able to function without His intervention (otherwise God’s initial creation would have been flawed). God’s miracles are not aimed at sustaining the earth and the cosmos, but rather at us human beings. God would punish or reward the Israelites, and God used miracles - acts contrary to the natural order - as signs of the authority of His prophets.
Thus Christians only invoke God a few times, such as creating the universe and the resurrection of Jesus. Science and a naturally functioning world only strengthen the case for these one-off events because they stand in such stark contrast to the regularly functioning natural order. Of course, Christians do have to defend the old earthinterpretation of the Bible, and either reconcile the Bible with evolution or defend intelligent design, and perhaps resolve a few other bible difficulties.
Different religions effectively refute each other
Most atheists hold to certain ethical principles, such as “slavery is wrong” and “society should provide for the elderly.” But there is as much anthropological data on the diversity of ethical beliefs as there is of the diversity of religious beliefs. This including societies that support slavery, and societies which kill the elderly when they cease being productive. Does this mean that different views of ethics refute each other and we should all become nihilists?
Do different theories about the nature of a disease, or the nature of the Big Bang, refute each other? Should we decide that there is no disease, or no Big Bang? Of course not. If anything, the fact that there are different religions provides evidence for God. You only get multiple theories of a disease when you have reasonable evidence that the disease exists, so you only get multiple theories of a God (or Gods) when there is reasonable evidence that a higher power exists. Now it is simply a matter of finding out which religion is right.
Alternately, we can step back and view both atheism and different religions as competing theories of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Do these theories of Life, the Universe, and Everything refute each other? The atheists objection is shown to be a semantic argument.
Now lets have some fun and evaluate these different theories of Life, the Universe, and Everything. It turns out that atheism is not quite as unique as it first appears. Lets construct a graph. We’ll put the different theories on the x-axis. Atheism at 0, Christianity at 1, Islam at 2, Judaism at 3, Buddhism at 4, and so on. Then lets plot “number of god(s)” on the y-axis. Atheism has 0, but so does Buddhism, Taoism, Platonism and probably a few other mystical or eastern religions. The monotheistic religions all have a value of 1, and polytheistic religions have many gods. Now lets plot “number of afterlives.” Atheism again has 0, but so does Taoism, pantheism, deism, and a few others. Monotheistic religions generally have 1 afterlife. Karmic religions that endorse reincarnation have many, perhaps infinite, afterlives. Then lets plot “number of different types of substances” using the philosophical definition of substance. Atheism has one: quantum fields. All that exists is made of matter, energy, and elementary forces. But deism, pantheism, and probably a few others would also have a value of 1. The three great monotheistic religions would answer 2: quantum fields (matter) and spirit.
Now it is clear that atheism isn’t particularly special. Rather than being an outlier that is distant from the fray, it is pretty similar to other religious viewpoints. And we haven’t even tried to put pressure on atheism yet. We could plot “Is there a meaning of life” or “are there objective ethics” or “do people have free will” and fracture atheism into multiple theories.
Now lets put some real pressure on atheism and plot “the success of societies based upon this theory of Life, the Universe and Everything.” The only atheist societies that have existed are communist, and they have all failed miserably. By contrast, Christian societies (Europe, the United States, and the West) are the most successful in history.
