Exposing the Theist

The following are three crappy (for lack of a better word) arguments made by theists, each with an exposition by yours truly.

"God exists, because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's the Word of God, and God wouldn't lie."

Here, the theist assumes as a premise the very thing he's attempting to prove, namely the existence of God. The premises should lead to the conclusion, not be the conclusion.


"We create complex things, and we are complex, therefore we have a creator, and our creator is God."

This is a conjecture at best. We know that we create things because we do so all the time, and we've been doing so for many years. That is the proof. However, there's no proof that humankind has a creator, let alone that God is the creator. Also, some things are created by more than one person, such as buildings, for example. So, if we were created, we don't necessarily have just one creator. Anyway, the Theory of Evolution contradicts ID, and has evidence backing it.


"The fact that we exist is proof that God exists."

God is defined as our creator, so here the theist assumes that God must be there since we're here. However, our existence is not proof of God any more than the appearance of presents under your tree on Christmas Day is proof of Santa Claus.

Can anyone think of more?

>>1

Those are pretty crappy interpretations of the arguments Theists make. I've never actually heard anyone use the first argument, except for idiots who like to pretend it's a real argument to make Theists look like retards. At most, I've seen the second half of the arguments, but no real Theist who knows anything will argue that God exits simply because the Bible says he does.

The second argument is true, quite a bit of conjecture. However,  it is at least possible to argue that a God (God simply being a conciousness that created/caused the universe) would be a simpler explaination of how the universe works than what has to be a near infinitly complex scientific universe.
However, this is not reason in of itself to believe in a God, and certainly not one for believing in a specific God.

And I have never even heard of your third argument. Not even by people trying to make Theists look bad. If anything, it seems like a terrible terrible interpretation of the second argument. In any case, I doubt more than a hundred people in the history of religion have made that argument alone to prove God exists. It will most certainly only be seen as part of a larger argument.


In any case, good luck finding arguments for religion. There are very few, probably because any argument for religion is by design going to be conjecture at best.