There is No Evidence for God
Many atheists object: There is no evidence for God’s existence. How would you reply?
It’s tempting to trot out evidence immediately. Have you ever heard of X, Y, and Z arguments for God? What about all of these intelligent believers A, B, and C!?
There is definitely truth in that response. The internet has made tons of evidence for God readily available. Click any of these buttons for some video examples.
However, I think it’s wise to delay your presentation of such evidence. To have a more productive exchange, find out more information about what this skeptic has in mind.
A Tactical Reply
My advice: start with a good question. Here’s a great one I learned from Trent Horn:
That’s interesting you say there is no evidence. I’m curious, what is the best evidence you have heard and what do you think is the problem with it?
Bam. You’re off the hot seat. Next, focus your attention on listening carefully to their reply. The atheist will answer in one of three different ways.
A1: They have never heard any evidence.
A2: They have heard some evidence, but it is weak.
A3: They have heard some strong evidence, and they point to a mistake in reasoning.
Let’s examine how to respond in each case.
Responding to A1 or A2
In all likelihood, he or she will respond with no evidence A1 or weak evidence A2. What might we consider weak evidence? Here, I have in mind two main things: random anecdotes and “God-of-the-gaps” reasoning. The skeptic might say the best evidence he has heard is:
- One time a friend said he prayed for something and then it came true.
- Some people say that human beings are super complicated and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent.
Your skeptical friend dismisses both of those as weak. The first point could simply have been a coincidence and the second point, in his mind, is refuted by evolution. Just because something is complex, does not mean it has been designed. Moreover, to the skeptic, it sounds as if that reasoning is using God to plug up a gap in human knowledge, and that one day we will know an answer and it won’t involve God.
In both of those cases (A1 and A2), you can affirm their skepticism based on such evidence (or lack thereof), and offer something more for their consideration (e.g. the Kalam or Contingency argument). You could say:
- You know, I’d have to agree with you. That support for God’s existence is pretty weak, but there are other philosophical arguments out there. Have you ever heard the Kalam or Contingency argument? Would you mind if I shared them? I find them to be good reasons to think God exists.
Naturally, you must prepare (see the 3 P’s) for this discussion to do well in offering the arguments. But, by first agreeing with the skeptic you will validate their concerns, leaving them open to hear the arguments in a new light.
The Prepared Skeptic
Of course, there is a chance they will respond with strong evidence and assert a mistake in the reasoning (A3). This atheist or skeptic did his homework, and you should commend that! Moreover, you can reply to his objection, provided that you have a good grasp of the issue. You could say:
- That’s a good point and shows that you have looked into the issue seriously. Have you ever considered [insert a resolution to the issue he raised]?
If you haven’t studied his objection and don’t know how to answer, grant him the point. Also, let him know you’ll look into it and get back to him. It’s best to be intellectually honest.
Your Action Plan
Follow these three steps.
- Rehearse some arguments for God’s existence in your spare time.
- When you hear the no-evidence objection, respond with Trent Horn’s question.
- Reply accordingly to their A1, A2, or A3 responses.
Now go out there and do it! You got this!
Books
For a survey of some great arguments, check out On Guard by William Lane Craig.
For a defense of Aquinas’s 5 Ways, check out Aquinas by Edward Feser.
A Tactical Question to Remember: What is the best evidence you’ve heard for God’s existence and what do you think is wrong with it?
I’ve only made it through a couple of your linked videos, but here’s a comment I made on one of them:
“Religion exists at the edge of knowledge”, Before we understood the
mechanics of cell division, humans thought it was divine. Now we know
better. We can explain what is happening with physics and chemistry.
You discount chance with a specious argument, right at the end of your commentary on chance. (beautiful video, by the way). But you are missing the concept of eternity. If something has a chance of 1-to-the-10-to-the-120 of happening, that’s pretty unlikely, but infinity looks at that number and laughs at how tiny it is.
How about this: The Universe (physics and stuff) tries (and here I’m anthropomorphising, but that process is still unknown to us) and in the ten-to-the-ten-to-the-thousand-to-the-ten times, one of these tries gets it right. Perhaps that’s where we are now. A chance. An infinite number of monkeys in a room with typewriters randomly recreating the works of Shakespeare.
If you discount chance and call it GOD, you’re no different than the medieval alchemist doing his chants to turn lead into gold.
Baxter,
Thanks for the comment.
Re: “Religion exists at the edge of knowledge”. . .
This seems to imply that all of the arguments for God are “God-of-the-gaps” arguments. This is not the case. Some of the strongest arguments for God are rooted in philosophy not in the natural sciences. I think you’ll appreciate this analogy: some of the strongest arguments against the minimum wage are rooted in theoretical economic reasoning not in empirical case studies of the minimum wage.
Re: but infinity looks at that number and laughs at how tiny it is.
This assumes there was an infinity (or sufficiently large number) of chances of producing the universe. But if there is only one universe (and note that we don’t have empirical evidence of any other universes), then that does not refute the point.
Re: How about this: The Universe (physics and stuff) tries (and here I’m anthropomorphising, but that process is still unknown to us) and in the ten-to-the-ten-to-the-thousand-to-the-ten times, one of these tries gets it right. Perhaps that’s where we are now. A chance. An infinite number of monkeys in a room with typewriters randomly recreating the works of Shakespeare.
What do you mean by “The Universe tries”? Doesn’t “The Universe” already have the constants and quantities in question? If so, are you proposing that the constants and quantities have changed tons of times in the past? I’m a little unclear on what you’re arguing here.
Re: If you discount chance and call it GOD, you’re no different than the medieval alchemist doing his chants to turn lead into gold.
The fine-tuning argument doesn’t merely discount chance with hand waving. It aims to show that chance is not the best explanation of what we observe. To counter that, you will need to show why chance (or something else) is the best explanation.
OK, I’ve gone through the rest of the videos. They are all on the same YouTube channel. All but one has the comments disabled. It’s obvious to me that you are proselytizing, even though you are pitching this site as some logical proof of GOD. There is no such thing.
To say that there can be no good or evil without GOD is placing a razor-thin subjective definition of good and evil.
I came here as a link from Tom Woods. I would expect that someone who appreciates Tom and the libertarian ethos would not try to paint his faith through deceptive arguments full of strawman arguments and painting theories and faith as fact.
Deception is one of those things that a lot of people would call “evil”.
I’m what you would call an atheist, but I believe that good people respect the rights of others as long as their actions don’t impinge on the rights of me or other people. I would consider myself a good person, but by your theory, good doesn’t exist in my universe.
Believe what you want, but when you peddle deceit, I think we can both agree that such an act is the genesis of evil. In your bible, I believe the serpent used deceit to fool Eve into eating the apple.
Baxter,
I’m sorry to disappoint your curiosity, but I appreciate you stopping after hearing the Tom Woods Show and leaving some comments.
Re: OK, I’ve gone through the rest of the videos. They are all on the same YouTube channel.
4 of the 5 are from reasonable faith but the Aristotelian argument is not on that channel. I would suggest you look into that one at some point. It is the closest argument to the one Tom presents on his show episode 272.
Re: I would expect that someone who appreciates Tom and the libertarian ethos would not try to paint his faith through deceptive arguments full of strawman arguments and painting theories and faith as fact.
These are hand-waving assertions. Care to elaborate?
Re: Believe what you want, but when you peddle deceit, I think we can both agree that such an act is the genesis of evil.
It is not my intention to “peddle deceit” and I’m very confused as to what deceit I am peddling. If you read the intro, the point of this article is to counter the assertion that “There is no evidence for God’s existence.”
Whether or not you return, I’m glad we have some common ground as Tom Woods Show fans.
Peace,
John D.
John:
I think the Aristotelian Argument Link needs to be updated I think to:
Sincerely,
Tom
Thanks, Thomas, for the comment. I have updated the link!
Peace,
John
2 of the 5 links are dead.
Thanks for letting me know. They’ll be fixed today.