Commonly Used Arguments For God (And Why They Are Wrong)

Here is a post from new Silly Fundies contributor, Matt Bulger:

As many of us know, religion is perhaps the largest driving force of debate in the world. It is a provocative and hotly contested issue, and I find myself right in the middle of it again. I have compiled, from my own personal experience, some of the reasons why people are religious and believe in an all-mighty deity, hereafter known as God. I will now condense the many debates I have had on this topic down to 3 basic points that seem to be the foundation for a Pro-God argument.

1. You can't disprove God's existence.

2. What or who created the universe if not God?

3. Pascal's Wager (I would rather believe in God and be wrong than not believe in God and be wrong)

So let us begin with the first point. God, in all his different forms, has yet to be proven, for if it had we would all be believers. The problem with this argument is that the burden of proof is on those who originally make the assertion. I may say anything I wish, but without proof, I do not have a legitimate point. Therefore, I am justified in dismissing, without proof, any assertion that was also made without proof. Also, it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of something that was not proved to exist in the first place (a double negative).

The second point is by far the most interesting point, because this point is a direct insight into humanity's quest to explain the unknown. We currently, and may never, know how the universe was created. However, our lack of knowledge on this topic does not prove the existence of God, rather it simply proves that man does not know how we came to be. Not having an answer does not lead to proof of an all-mighty deity, rather it displays humanity's ignorance of the subject. But rather than accepting this answer, many still turn to God in their attempt to explain the unexplainable. Our fear of what cannot be explained to us is what leads to this outcome, as it is quite discomforting to us that we do not have an answer to such an important topic as this. However, this belief in God does not explain how the universe was created, rather it provides a scientifically devoid guess and fantasy to quell our discomfort.

Now to the third point, Pascal's Wager. This is a clever piece of fear inspired reasoning, and I must say that I am impressed with the sheer effectiveness of it's argument. It is clever in that it defines a clear yet abstract consequence, Hell and the unknown, for a lack of faith. At the same time having a strong faith is shown to have no consequence at all. Very nicely done if i might say so myself. However, there are fundamental flaws with this "reasoning". First, is faith out of fear really faith? If you believe in God solely because of the consequence of disbelief, are you a true follower of the deity? I personally do not think so, but obviously many people do. Second, this mentality might be applied to anything, and rather than proving God, it attempts to prove that disbelief in God is worse then belief in God. I may say that if every human does not give me a dollar I will make the sun explode, but if there is no proof that I might accomplish this astronomical feat there is no point in donating money to me (although I do need some cash about now). My point is that this wager does not prove God, rather all it does is intimidate us through fear into believing in something that cannot be proven or disproven either way. Pascal's Wager appeals to our baser instincts through fear, and proves nothing.

Overall, my point is that no matter how hard anyone tries, God cannot be proven. Therefore, trying to convince anyone that God exists is a moot point. The only way that a person can believe in God is through blind faith, and as Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing something you know ain't true."