Understanding Arguments and Evidence
An argument isn't a quarrel. It's a set of statements (premises) that logically lead to a conclusion. We use the rules of argumentation unconsciously in everyday life.
For example, if you tell a friend you're going to the library and they say you can't because it's Sunday and the library is closed, they've just presented you with a logical argument.
Deductive Arguments
In a deductive argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true. A good deductive argument is considered sound if it is both logically valid and has true premises.
Example: A Sound Argument
This is a logically valid argument. If premises (1) and (2) are true, the conclusion must also be true.
Note: Most of the arguments presented in this documentation will have an argument map like this, showing the back-and-forth dialogue between Pro and Con positions.
A good argument's premises should be more plausible than their denials. We don't need 100% certainty; if the premises are more likely true than not, the conclusion is also more likely true than not.
Examples of Flawed Arguments
An argument can be flawed if it is logically invalid, contains a fallacy, or is based on false premises.
1. Invalid Logical Structure
An argument is invalid if the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, even if all statements are true.
2. Logical Fallacies
A fallacious argument uses faulty reasoning. A common example is a circular argument, which assumes what it is trying to prove.
For further reading, see this list of common logical fallacies.
3. False Premises
An argument is unsound if it is based on one or more false premises, even if its logical structure is valid.
Inductive Arguments
In an inductive argument, the premises provide strong evidence for the conclusion, making it probable but not guaranteed.
Other examples include drawing general conclusions from repeated observations, like concluding a bag contains only pennies after repeatedly drawing a penny from it.
Inference to the Best Explanation
This is a form of inductive reasoning where we select the hypothesis that best explains the available data from a pool of possible options. The criteria for the "best" explanation include:
Explanatory Scope: Explains the widest range of data.
Explanatory Power: Makes the data more probable.
Plausibility: Aligns with other accepted truths.
Less Ad Hoc: Requires fewer new, unproven assumptions.
Accord with Accepted Beliefs: Conflicts with fewer accepted truths.
Comparative Superiority: Far exceeds rival hypotheses in meeting the above criteria.
God and Evidence
When a non-theist says, "I don't believe in God," their reasoning often falls into one of these categories:
There isn't enough evidence.
I believe I can prove God doesn't exist.
I don't care to discuss it.
While it's easy to disprove concepts that are logically impossible (like a "square circle"), it is much harder to prove the non-existence of God, as the concept is not inherently nonsensical.
When these people say "There's not enough evidence," what they usually mean is that there is not enough evidence to force them to believe. But there IS evidence—the many arguments for God!
Design
Ontological
Resurrection of Jesus
Cosmological
Kalam
Moral
So, agnostics and atheists will have to show these evidences are no good.
Is Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence?
When people say there's "not enough evidence" for God, they often mean there is no evidence that forces them to believe. However, the absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if you would expect to see evidence if the thing existed.
So, the question becomes: If God existed, should we expect to have more evidence than we do? Not necessarily. The Bible suggests God's primary goal is not merely to prove His existence but to draw us into a loving, voluntary relationship. Overwhelming, coercive evidence could undermine this purpose (James 2:19).
The Challenge of Atheistic Arguments
Many times, a refusal to believe is rooted in moral or personal reasons rather than purely intellectual ones. Sin and self-centeredness can make it difficult to accept evidence, no matter how good it is.
Thoughtful atheists, however, do offer arguments against God's existence. The two most significant are:
The Problem of Divine Hiddenness: Why doesn't God make His existence more obvious?
The Problem of Evil: How can a good God allow so much suffering?
These two arguments represent the strongest intellectual challenges to theism and will be covered in detail.
Examining Expectations of Evidence: Common Analogies
To further explore the relationship between evidence and belief, let's consider a few common analogies used in these discussions.
Fairies and Santa Claus
If beings like fairies or Santa Claus were real, we would expect to find tangible evidence of their existence:
Fairies: Miniature villages, tools, or biological remains.
Santa Claus: A large-scale toy factory at the North Pole, sightings of flying reindeer, or unexplained gifts appearing worldwide.
The complete lack of such expected evidence provides strong grounds to believe they do not exist.
Russell's Teapot
This analogy, proposed by philosopher Bertrand Russell, imagines a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars.
There is no evidence that such a teapot exists.
However, it is practically impossible to disprove its existence by searching all of space.
Russell's point is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the unfalsifiable claim, not on others to disprove it. We can reasonably believe the teapot doesn't exist because there's no reason to think it does. It would require a specific cause (like a space mission launching it), and we have no evidence of such a cause.
Invisible, Immaterial Pink Elephants
Consider the claim that an "invisible, immaterial, floating pink elephant" exists.
Such a being, by its definition, leaves no evidence.
The concept itself is arguably incoherent. An elephant is, by nature, a physical, material being. An "immaterial elephant" is a contradiction in terms.
The Possibility of Immaterial Beings
What about things that are defined as invisible and immaterial, such as spirits or angels?
Unlike an immaterial elephant, the concept of an immaterial spirit is not self-contradictory.
Since they would not leave physical evidence, the absence of such evidence doesn't count against their existence.
This brings the discussion back to whether we have good reasons or arguments to believe in such beings, which is where philosophical and theological arguments for God come in.
The Flaw of Assuming Divine Psychology
A common but weak form of argument against God's existence attempts to psychoanalyze Him. These arguments are based on assumptions about how a divine being ought to behave, rather than on direct evidence or logical deduction. They typically follow this pattern:
If God existed, He would surely do X, Y, and Z (e.g., prevent all suffering, make His presence undeniably obvious).
We do not observe X, Y, and Z happening.
Therefore, God must not exist.
The fundamental flaw is the first premise, which presumes to understand the mind and motivations of a transcendent being. This is an argument from psychological speculation, not logic. For example, experiments on intercessory prayer treat God as a mechanical force that must respond to certain inputs. However, if God is a personal being with free will, He could choose not to participate, especially in an experiment designed to test Him. Ultimately, these arguments are based on human expectations of how God should act, not on sound reasoning.
Now that we have a framework for evaluating arguments, we will turn to the most significant challenges to theism. We will begin by addressing the strongest atheistic arguments, starting with the problem of divine hiddenness.