Quick Response to "Quick Response to 10 Common Theist Arguments"

Quick Response to "Quick Response to 10 Common Theist Arguments"

I recently read an atheist article that gives 10 popular arguments for theism and then refutes them. I want to briefly address them here but will not go into much detail as these are clearly straw men and I can't think of any theist that would argue such claims.  

"Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way." - This is the God of the gaps idea where anytime something is unexplainable the theist would point to God and say "we don't know why, so therefore God." This is a caricature  of theism and almost no theist would make such a claim. However this "argument" seems to touch upon the teleological, or fine tuning argument, which says that the fine tuning of this universe for life is due to either chance, necessity, or design. The theist would then argue why it is not due to chance or necessity, therefore proving it must be design. The complexity of life is one argument that could be used to refute mere chance. 

"God's existence is proven by scripture." - Come on, do you think any theist would argue God's existence to an atheist based on "The Bible says so"?...

"Some unexplained events are miraculous, and these miracles prove the existence of God." - In the refutation, the writer makes two claims. One is that miracles can't occur which begs the question for atheism, the second is that something might seem miraculous but that's just because science hasn't yet been able to explain it. This seems like the very "God of the gaps" idea it mocks above, only this time it is "science of the gaps". Claiming "we don't know how something happened, but science will prove it." 

"Morality stems from God, and without God, we could not be good people." - Here the difference must be made between where morals come from and how we come to know morals (moral ontology and epistemology). It is true that objective morality can only come from a god, but that doesn't mean you must believe in Him to have such morals. Scripture even says that He has written His law on their hearts (Romans 2:15). Without God though it is true that we could not be good people, for there would not be good or bad! Only different. 

"Belief in God would not be so widespread if God didn’t exist." - Anyone can look at any widespread belief and say such a thing, no one would honestly argue this as a case for theism. 

"God answers prayers; therefore, he must be real." - This one's interesting, as well as the next one. This is how we might KNOW God exists, however this isn't how we can SHOW God exists. Answers to prayer in my own life help solidify my faith but it can never be used as an evangelistic tool. Also the fact that not all prayers are answered doesn't undercut God. For if one prayer is truly answered (and not something that would have naturally occurred anyways) then that is enough evidence for God. However this can never be proved or disproved seeing how we could never control such an experiment. 

"I feel a personal relationship to God, so I know that he is real." - Again, this is how we know God exists, but this is not how we can show God exists. For that, there are many Apologetical arguments and evidences I can direct you towards (oddly enough, none of which are addressed by this article...)

"It's safer to believe in God than be wrong and go to Hell." - A perversion of Pascal's Wager. Pascal said that if all evidence is equal, go with the God hypothesis because there is greater potential reward. He never claimed despite any and all evidence (as this article paints it as, though I would claim the evidence leans towards theism).

"I have faith; I don't need facts. I just want to believe." - I've never heard any theist say "I don't need facts." In fact, Christ claims to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). He also says that the truth will set us free (John 8:32). Similarly, St. Augustine famously said that all truth is God's truth. These would all be in direct contradiction to "I don't need facts". Also, the facts seem to point towards theism.

"There's no evidence that God doesn't exist." - They want to claim here that the burden of proof lies on the theist and not the atheist. That's simply not true. Atheism says "There is no God" while theism says "There is a God." Both make equal truth claims and therefore must equally shoulder the burden of proof.