The Best Argument Against the Existence of the Christian God

Gender of God - Wikipedia

Listen to any debate involving a prominent conservative Christian apologist on the topic of Does God Exist and they will usually appeal to the following two lines of argument for the existence of God:

–Everything we know comes from something. Something cannot come from nothing.

–The fine tuning of the universe (the laws of physics, the set orbits of planets, etc.) points to an intelligent designer, a Creator.

My response: It is certainly possible that our universe was created by an intelligent being, but that in no way proves that your god, Yahweh/Jesus the carpenter Christ, is that intelligent creator. The Judeo-Christian god claims to have produced many amazing, laws-of-physics defying “miracles”, yet no scientist since the dawn of the scientific age has ever been able to verify one single laws-of-physics defying event. Not one. Ever.

So, although it is certainly possible that your god, by sheer coincidence, stopped violating the laws of physics just prior to the point in time when humans began using the Scientific Method, I think a more rational conclusion would be that your god does not exist, or at a minimum, that he has lost all his magical powers, and therefore cannot help or harm us.

Dear Christian apologist: Don’t bother me with evidence for an Intelligent Designer. If he/she/they or it exist(s), all evidence suggests that they don’t give a damn about what happens to you or me. Give me good evidence for the existence of your god…or get the hell off the debate stage! You are wasting our time.






End of post.

8 thoughts on “The Best Argument Against the Existence of the Christian God

  1. When Evangelical apologists use this line of argumentation with me, I typically grant their God premise. I tell them, “I totally understand how someone could look at the night sky or the universe and conclude that a deistic God of some sort created everything.” Typically, they are astounded by my admission, thinking they have me right where they want me. I then ask, “without using the Bible, please connect the dots between A God and THE God (particularly the Evangelical deity). I’m still waiting for an answer that is anything more than an appeal to the Bible, faith, or personal experience.

    I’ve been taking this approach with apologists for over a decade. Seems to be a good way to end such nonsensical arguments for the existence of the Christian deity.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Well said, Bruce.

      I always find it interesting how apologists try to make the great leap from a generic god to their god, Yahweh/Jesus. In my experience, it typically goes something like this:

      The fact that the Creator has fine-tuned the universe demonstrates his care and concern for his creation. The Creator is not a disinterested, unfeeling machine or force. The Creator God is a personal, caring being.

      Jesus Christ is the epitome of a personal, caring being. And his resurrection proves that he was not just an ordinary being. He was divine. If one objectively evaluates all the evidence, one must admit that Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pilate but risen from the dead on Easter Sunday, must be the Creator God.

      My response: You have got to be kidding me! That is evidence that a first century peasant is the creator of the universe??? Come on, Christians. Use your brains!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. David B. Marshall, a Christian apologist and author of Apologetics 315, had this comment today on his blog responding to my previous but similar comments on this issue:

    Gary, It is interesting that you distance yourself from God by fixing an ancient Hebrew name to Him, which makes Him seem less familiar. This may be a symptom of something. God is not an “ancient Jewish deity:” He is the Creator, as known in thousands of cultures around the world even BEFORE the Good News arrived. The Hebrew name is not that important.

    I don’t know what you mean by claiming that “Science has never found a violation of its laws.” History, not science, is the field primarily responsible for studying past events. (Though of course historians make use of physics, math, archeology, etc.) And many historians have argued that miracles have, in fact, occurred. You seem to be arguing in a circle. (As Hume did.) Miracles never happen, because they can’t happen, because they never happen.

    Anyway, I wouldn’t define miracles as “a violation of the laws of science.” I would define them as “a probative event in this world which gives evidence of God’s special workings.” A miracle, therefore, reflects the character of a good God, and the rationality of creation, and calls us to be more human, not to bark like dogs or go mad.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. David said, “God is not an “ancient Jewish deity:” He is the Creator, as known in thousands of cultures around the world even BEFORE the Good News arrived. The Hebrew name is not that important.”

      As the late, great Christopher Hitchens used to say, “Religion was our first attempt at explaining reality.” It is perfectly understandable that all or almost all primitive peoples invented superstitious rituals and invisible superheroes in an attempt to make sense of their scary, dangerous world. Humans see cause and effect in practically everything! If our ancient forefathers heard a rustling in the tall grass, they automatically imagined a sabertooth tiger or some other “monster” lurking in the grass, ready to pounce on them. This superstitious instinct kept them alive! But we no longer need superstitions to keep us alive, David. Trust science, my friend, not ancient, scientifically ignorant superstitions and imaginary superheroes.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I like your answer Gary. One other thing to point out is that his claim doesn’t jive with the fact that, aside from the Hebrews, pretty much the rest of the world was polytheistic with a mishmash of creation stories, all mutually incompatible with each other. Why should anyone believe that one particular tribe of superstitious people, living in the Middle East, just happen to get it right, or were the lucky recipients of divine revelation?

        This point is really is nothing short of an appeal to popularity fallacy.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Details … Details, Herald.

          It’s so much easier to form your view of the world around the story that is “accepted” among “God’s” faithful. (Notice I didn’t use the “Hebrew” term.) Why stir the cauldron by throwing in logic?? Tsk-tsk.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s