Believers might counter this argument by stating that if God is perfect, then he created us as well as could possibly be expected. They might also argue that what we see as imperfections actually have a purpose in the larger workings of God’s design. Point out the logical fallacy in this right away. We can’t live our lives hoping that one day an explanation for why our eyes or shoulders were designed so poorly will arise. Reference the philosopher Voltaire, who wrote a novel about people looking for meaning after a devastating earthquake hit Paris. We are pattern-seeking animals, so naturally we look and hope for patterns where none can be found. Some might point out that God originally created humans in their perfect form, but after humanity sinned against God, God’s original creation became corrupt and wrought with sin, and death and entropy entered the world as a result. Be aware of this rebuttal when using the flawed-design argument.
For instance, you might cite the example of evolution as one area where science has revised previous God-centric explanations for the variety of species in our world. Argue that religion has often been used to explain the unexplainable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happen, which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates to relieve pressure.
For instance, you might say, “We find rocks all the time that are dated to be millions or even billions of years old. Doesn’t this conflict with the belief that the universe was recently created by God?” Some might argue that the earth only appears to be old because Noah’s Flood dramatically changed the climate and geology of the earth. However, this fails to explain the millions of craters on the moon and the supernovas in outer space.
You could also suggest that people who are raised in one religion overwhelmingly tend to stick with that religion throughout their lives. Those who were not raised in a religious household, conversely, rarely become religious later.
Suggest that if people are not exposed to religion or the idea of God, they will tend to not believe in God.
This is known formally as the argument from inconsistent revelations.
For instance, if God is described in one part of the holy text as forgiving, but later wipes out a whole village or country, you could use this apparent contradiction to demonstrate that God could not exist (or that the holy text is lying). In the case of the Bible, often entire verses, stories, and anecdotes were falsified or changed at some point. For instance, Mark 9:29 and John 7:53 to 8:11 contain passages that were copied from other sources. [5] X Research source Explain that this demonstrates that holy texts are just a mishmash of creative ideas produced by people, not divinely inspired books.
Believers might counter this claim by stating that God allows free will, and that therefore, unbelief is an inevitable outcome of this. They might cite specific instances in their holy texts of occasions when their God revealed himself to people who still refused to believe.
People who believe in God might counter that God – being omnipotent – is outside of space and time, and is therefore the exception to the rule that all things have a beginning and an end. If they counter in this way, you should direct the argument towards the contradictions in the idea of omnipotence.
Your conversation partner might reply “Governments by man are ungodly and fallible. People, not God, cause evil. ” In this way, your conversation partner might again invoke the idea of free will to counter the notion that God is responsible for all the wickedness in the world. Still, this counter fails to explain the evil that is not caused by humans, such as sickness from microorganisms and earthquakes. You could also go one step further and argue that even if a bad god exists who does allow evil, he is not worth worshiping.
You could also reverse this proposition by arguing that not only does religion not lead to goodness, it leads to evil, since many religious people commit immoral acts in the name of their God. You might, for instance, draw attention to the Spanish Inquisition or religious terrorism around the world. In addition, animals who are incapable of understanding our human concept of religion show clear evidence of instinctual understanding of moral behavior and distinguishing between right and wrong. You could argue that morality is a social behavior that helps ensure the collective survival of a species and is not necessarily spiritually linked.
For instance, you might draw attention to Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens as individuals who met with great success despite the fact they do not believe in God.
Say to your conversation partner, “If God knows everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it, your future is a foregone conclusion. That being the case, how can God judge us for what we do?” People who believe in God may answer that although God knows an individual’s decision beforehand, individual actions are still each person’s free choice. This idea is a nice thought, but it is still contradictory for the reasons above. [11] X Research source
Another logically impossible thing you could suggest God cannot do is to know and not know something at the same time. You could also argue that if God is omnipotent, why does he allow natural disasters, massacres, and wars? Some believers offer the idea that perhaps God isn’t completely omnipotent, and that while he is extremely powerful, he cannot do absolutely everything. This may explain why God can do some things but cannot logically do others.
For instance, you could ask what happens after death. Many people who believe in God also believe in an afterlife. Ask for evidence of this afterlife. Spiritual entities such as gods, devils, heaven, hell, angels, demons, and so on have never been (and cannot be) scientifically examined or observed. Point out that these spiritual features cannot be proven to exist if they are not observable and measurable.
In addition to researching arguments in favor of atheism, investigate the rebuttals or justifications from the religious perspective. Be familiar with the issues or beliefs that might invite your opponent’s criticism, and ensure you can adequately defend your own beliefs.
You might say, “Mexico was settled by a Catholic country, right?” When they answer yes, move on to the next premise, like “Most people in Mexico are Catholic, right?” When they answer yes, move on to your conclusion by saying, for instance, “The reason that most people believe in God in Mexico is the history of the religious culture there. ”
Ask your conversation partner for resources (books or websites) that you can use to learn more about their perspective and beliefs. Belief in God is complicated, and statements about God’s existence – either for or against – cannot be taken as fact.
Slow down your rate of speech so that you have more time to think about what you want to say and avoid saying something you later regret. If you start feeling angry, say to your conversation partner, “Let’s agree to disagree,” then part ways from them. Be polite when discussing God. Remember a lot of people are sensitive about their religions. Be respectful of those who believe in God. Do not use offensive or accusatory language like bad, stupid, or crazy. Do not call your conversation partner names. In the end, rather than making a concise point, your opponent will often default to “I’m sorry you’re going to Hell. ” Do not respond with an equally passive-aggressive retort.
