Select Page

Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay

(Editor’s note: Due to what is being covered, this article is longer than normal)

Some Atheists propose arguments they believe or at least claim, demonstrate that God does not exist. They tend to fixate on one particular view of God, namely monotheism. Thus, even if they were successful, which they are not, that does nothing to demonstrate some sort of god or gods do not exist.

Perhaps the Mormon gods exist or the Hindu view that everything that exists is god is true. So, in reality, the best they can do is to argue for Agnosticism (which is akin to “weak Atheism”).

When they argue against a monotheistic God, some of their arguments do not hold against Trinitarian-monotheism. The article is written from a biblical Christian theological perspective. Therefore, we will not be defending generic “religion” nor vague “theism” but only biblical theology.

Oddly enough, Atheists have to draw from biblical theology in order to attempt to argue their case. In other words, they must beg, borrow, and steal from the very view against which they are arguing and so they end up sawing off (or attempting to do so) the very branch upon which they sit.

The “10 Logical Proofs” undergoing examination are proposed in a video titled “God Does Not Exist 10 Logical Proofs” by the Crunch YouTube channel. They begin with a bit of bait and switch. The assertion is not that evidence is provided for their claims but rather, “logical proofs.” They are not arguing against belief in God but definitively positively affirming that “God Does Not Exist.”

The title refers to “proof” but the intro switches the claim to “evidence.”

“In case you deny the existence of the Almighty and somehow lack evidence to support your side, we have you covered.”

Moreover, it is asserted that the “10 logical reasons” (another change from the title’s reference to “10 logical proofs”) “will shake some believers!”

One thing that haunts the entire video (and all of Atheism really) is its supposed premise of logical analysis to arrive at a conclusion. In general, the conclusion is asserted and then Atheists attempt to formulate reasons the conclusion should be self-evident.

On Atheism, logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it. There is no universal imperative to adhere to it much less demand that others do so either: this alone is the undoing of any and all Atheist missionaries endeavors.

If Atheism is true, there is no universal imperative for humans, which are only accidentally and temporarily existing apes (evolution) to only hold to facts, based on truth, based on reality, mitigated by logic within an existence wherein facts, truth, reality, logic, and apes are all accidental-period, full stop. In other words, we came from nothing, completely by a series of accidents in what is a meaningless and accidental universe.

The video refers to “Using EVIDENCE” and “Using LOGIC” and while Atheists can use logic, on their view that is merely a subjective personal preference (based on hidden assumptions that should be exposed). Likewise with evidence or proof: they may subjectively assert that we ought to base our view on evidence and proof but, again, that is a mere preference on the level of demanding that their favorite ice-cream flavor truly is the one that everyone should prefer. We would suggest they must begin by first justifying a demand for evidence or proof via a premise from their worldview.

Proof/reason #10 “Poorly Designed Universe”:

This is elucidated thusly,

“Don’t the theists say that God is perfect and the creator of the Universe? Well, then why did he design the universe and his babies in such poor fashion?”

Unsure what is meant by “his babies”-humanity, perhaps. The assertion of God having “design[ed] the universe and his babies in such poor fashion” merely presupposes that such is the biblical claim when it is not. We affirm that God is perfect and the creator yet, this does not require the current state of creation to be perfect. The Bible teaches that the creation is fallen (Gen 3) so that “Disease and malfunction” were not created by God but are a result of the fall-and will be eliminated when redemption of all things is completed.

Now, even if something is poorly designed, it is still designed which requires a designer, God in this case. Engineers construct “parts that are designed to wear out” such as brake pads: we do not (or should not) examine worn brake pads and conclude they were not designed, or there was no designer.

This objection is flawed since it is actually evidence for God’s existence and not his non-existence. This amounts to a fallacy of false refutation or strawman argument (Argumentum hominem palae).

#9 “God of the Gaps”:


“could you explain the idea of God of the gaps that is your argument of his existence? You somehow prove God’s existence by pointing out phenomenon that science can’t explain and hence they are facilitated by God.”

This is not a biblical nor apologetic claim. Rather, all that science can explain and cannot explain argues for God’s existence and is the premise for the scientific method. A rational being created a rational creation and populated it with rational creatures who could rationally discern it.

When considering creation we do not argue that we do not know about God, but rather, we base our views on what we do know. For example, the universe’s various functions (including biological functions) are based on pre-existing information. The only known source of information is an intelligent being. That intelligent being is what we call “God.” Thus, we are not drawing on God to fill in the gaps in scientific knowledge but rather by observation, scientific testing, and deduction find what exists points to a pre-existent designer and first cause. Thus, the existence of science is evidence for God’s existence. #9 is again a straw-man argument-a straw-God argument actually. (Argumentum hominem palae)

#8 “Inconsistency of Religions”:


The reason we all have different views of him is that he does not exist.”

This one is simply absurd and utterly myopic. There are different views of Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Some may wish one or the other didn’t exist but we do not know of anyone who would assert different views of them is evidence they do not exist. The “different views of” Trump, Biden, and God result from various sources which may be favorable or unfavorable to them. In the case of varying descriptions of God, some are misled by false teachers, others are unclear about the nature of God, perhaps are rebellious, do not want to submit to God, or even invent a false view of God. This objection does not consider anthropology, particularly biblical anthropology which describes us as fallen and naturally rebellious.

We affirm biblical theology, in part, due to truths from evidence, logic, and reason  (which are like proofs) which confirm the claims of Scripture. This argument is a non sequitur fallacy in which the conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it. That people have different views of God only proves that people have different views of God not that God does not exist.

#7 “Creation of the World”:


“one widely accepted trait of the Almighty is that it is he who created the entire universe some 6,000 years ago. That being said, it should be evident that nothing on the planet is older than this time frame.”

Some believers do not conclude that biblical theology affirms a young Earth creation timeline. Many accept the age of the universe is 12 to 18 billion years and do not find it in conflict with their faith or the Bible. Thus, this would be more about one particular view of the Bible, not about God’s existence.

This is a fallacy of equivocation or bait and switch. Under the guise of arguing for the non-existence of God, they have switched to a supposed “widely accepted trait” on the timing of origins. Even if science proved the universe to be billions of years old, it would not follow necessarily that God does not exist since the age of the earth-young or old-does not disprove the existence of God. If one claims to be 6 years old but is actually older, does that mean they do not exist?

#6 “Existence of Evil in the World”:


“When believers say that there is a God, a power which is noble and good then do they forget the existence of evil in the world? Be logical, when God loves us so dearly then why does he allow evil to exist?”

This merely presupposes there is “evil,” and that it is something to be avoided, condemned, etc. Of course, we do not deny the existence of evil rather, we point out that they have to borrow from a biblical worldview to claim something is evil. In so doing, evil becomes evidence for God. How so? Because it is only by God, who is the standard of good, that we know what is evil-a standard which Atheism lacks.

God may use the evil that does exist to bring about good (salvation). The crucifixion of Christ was the evilest deed ever. Yet, it made salvation available to all who will trust in Jesus-by grace, through faith. That is the greatest good for us and demonstrates God’s love for us.

This was a false, pseudo, refutation since the existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of God. This is another non sequitur.

Now, if someone looks to nations founded on Atheism (the former USSR, Mao’s China, etc) they will find that “evil” still exists, however, they no longer have God to blame for it. God’s existence implies that we can be redeemed from evil, and evil will be eliminated in the future.

On Atheism, there is only predator and prey in an accidental meaningless existence which results in what they call evil, pain, and suffering, notions which come from a biblical worldview. Yet, it is not quite the case that on Atheism evil, pain, and suffering are for nothing but are simply how Atheistic evolution operates in ridding us and the planet of the less fit which advances evolution.

#5 “Morality needs no religion”:


“Looking at the behavior of a believer and an Atheist, you’d see that there is little to no difference in their morality.”

Riotously, “that there is little to no difference in their morality” would imply a common objective standard of behavior, not a common result of accidents. Since the behavior of some believers is no different than some Atheists or that some Atheists behave better than some Christians has no bearing on whether or not God exists or that “morality needs no religion.” There are two options on this one. Morality is objectively true and we all have an internal knowingness or we have mob rule and the mob in power invents and inflicts whatever moral rules they choose. By observation, we can conclude God included morality in our internal coding (Romans 2:14-15)  Atheists have to point to an objective standard to make their claim. They may object that different cultures have different moral standards but as Dr. Francis Beckwith has pointed out, that isn’t really true. We have the same moral values but may implement them differently. For example, in America, most of us eat beef. It is not a moral problem. In parts of India, they do not eat beef and it is a moral choice. However, the reason they don’t eat beef is consistent within our moral values in both situations. We do not eat grandma in America. In India, with their view of reincarnation, the cow may be grandma. So in both cultures, we agree it is morally wrong to eat grandma.

That Christians or non-Christians behave morally bad says nothing about the origins of morality. However, it says something about the condition of humans, which Christianity affirms, we are sinners by nature and practice, and also demonstrates morals come from God.

#4 “Religion Runs in families”:


“Religion runs in family. If we ask you about your religion, there is a 99% chance that you follow the religion of your family because that is what you have been taught…

This is also a genetic logical fallacy since it seeks to discredit by attacking the source of belief. Even if belief is embraced and sustained by social pressure or even by intimidation and threats, it does not follow necessarily that God does not exist.

If our parents taught us to count does that invalidate mathematics?

While it may be a tu quoque (type of ad hominem argument), it is, “also true of Atheists”: or “some” Atheists just like it is true of “some” religious people but not of others.

This touches upon a belief of some Atheists who literally think that they are more evolved than thou. They may have been raised in religious homes but have found the one true truth in Atheism. Praised be nothing!

The Bible does not teach blind ignorance but to test all things, to look for evidence, to seek out wisdom and knowledge, to speak the truth in love, and encourage all people to examine the evidence and use logic and critical thinking to decide. Thus, many of us have examined the evidence and have faith in Jesus because of the evidence (biblically, “faith” refers to coming to a conclusion based on prior knowledge).

#3 “No evidence of existence”:


“Largely saying there is not much evidence to prove the existence of God. Well, if God is there, then why is there no proof of him being there?”

Step one is for Atheists is to ignore or attack the available evidence, the creation. (Romans 1:19-20) They then demand evidence, well, some other evidence. Note that, just like Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) who parroted him, the video admits that there is evidence of or for God but that there is-subjectively-“not enough” based on his personal preferences which in turn are based on hidden assumptions.

Note that this one jumps from referring to “evidence” to referring to “proof” and admits evidence (even if subjectively “not much”) but positively affirms (without evidence) that there is no proof.

#3 denotes ignorance of centuries of thinking regarding God and the natural world. Some Atheists correctly point out that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So why does that not apply to God (even if we momentarily grant absence of evidence)?

By that logic just because you have not found any evidence for God compelling, it does not mean He does not exist. It is not a PROOF. There is a difference between having evidence and subjectively finding such evidence compelling or not.

Bible believers have provided evidence and proofs of God for centuries: for example, various cosmological arguments (Kalam, Leibnizian, etc.), design arguments, ethical arguments, ontological arguments, etc.

The video admits to design (however poor) and ethics, which supports these arguments in favor of God’s existence. These arguments take as evidence, the universe and things found within it: design, information, order, purpose, ethics, duties, and so on. In other words, all of reality is evidence for God’s existence because of the specific nature of this particular universe-while on Atheism, all of the above is merely accidental.

Parroting Carl Sagan, some Atheists assert that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet, there is no standard of extraordinariness. When it comes to what is or what is not extraordinary. It’s like saying “tall” or “giant”: it’s subjective. Atheists take advantage of this: they demand evidence, you show them some, and they subjectively declare “not extraordinary enough.” By the way, would not extraordinary design require an extraordinary designer?

#2 “Common Consent”:


“One of the major reasons for believing in the existence of the supreme power is that most people believe it. Is it even logical to say that since a phenomenon is accepted by the majority, it must be true? We doubt that!”

Most people agreeing that the sky is blue may not ultimately mean that it really is blue but is a safe enough bet. In other words, the argumentum ad populum does not guarantee that a large number of people don’t have a faulty view. We do not prove truth by a majority. The Atheist view suffers a similar problem. Just because a large number of people believe in evolution does not prove or disprove evolution. Belief isn’t evidence but evidence may bring one to believe.

Just as with logic and evidence, the statement on this claim ends with “We doubt that!” but that which “We” doubt or do not doubt is again, not a standard, it is merely an emotively subjective declaration.

While we are at it, should we doubt something just because the populum agrees on it? Surely millions of people have claimed experiences with God (miracles, visitations, etc.) and unless each of those has been examined then one can only conclude that ALL of those people were mistaken-delusional, deceptive, ignorant, misunderstanding-if we presuppose that God does not exist. Ergo, that would be arguing in a circle.

The Bible does not say that we ought to believe in God because of majority opinion nor have any of the best biblical theologians made this argument. Rather, the Bible says that God’s existence can be seen from the evidence found in the natural world (Psalm 19) and even some of God’s power and attributes can be known by us from the nature of the creation,

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:20)

This was a straw man. It is not an argument made by Bible believers or even most theistic religions. Even if one can find some theists who argue that God exists because most people believe he exists, it does not follow that God does not exist (non sequitur). It is also a hasty generalization to apply it to all theistic views generally.

#1 “No Growth in Religion”:


“a decade ago, there had been so many things that we had no knowledge about but are now a part of our life. That’s how we have evolved and our knowledge about science, but can we apply the same thing to God? We guess not because we are still stuck with beliefs and ‘facts’ that have been in circulation for centuries.”

Atheism has utterly nothing to do with science and science has utterly nothing to do with Atheism. This one is we might term an argumentum ad chronologicum: “has been in circulation for centuries” ergo, false. 2+2=4 has been circulated for centuries. Does the mere passage of time demand that we reject it?

We are “stuck” with the same facts about God because God has revealed Himself finally and completely in the person of Jesus Christ who is God in the Flesh. As previously mentioned, God is also revealed in the natural world. God has revealed Himself in the text of the Bible, the canon of which has been closed for two millennia.

While these basic facts about God have not changed, our understanding has increased as more and more theology students have earned their PhDs and done research and written books. Archaeology has revealed more and more about the cultures that produced the Bible which also gives us insights into the deeper meaning of the biblical text-even though God’s word has always been perspicuous.

In fact, on a biblical worldview, all advancements in scientific knowledge deepen our understanding of the natural world which is God’s creation. We find that in the work of scientists like James Tour. Many of the modern scientists were Bible believers seeking to better understand God’s creation. So, the growth of scientific knowledge has also contributed to growth in our knowledge of God.

Again, this was another strange argument. Even if it was the case that our knowledge of God does not increase, it does not necessarily follow that God does not exist (another non sequitur). Likewise, has there been growth in our knowledge from Atheism? If not, does that make Atheism false? The basic facts of logic have not shown any growth through Atheism since they were described by the Greek philosophers over two millennia ago.

We still use modus ponens and modus tollens and say “Socrates is a man.” If there has been no growth in logic if we have been stuck with the same facts and beliefs about basic logic for millennia, does that mean logic is false? Obviously not. Unfortunately, this video relies on faulty logic.

One other point

The question “What do you believe in; science or God?” seems to derive from the imminent philosopher from the movie “Nacho Libre,” the guy who stole day old “cheeeeps” from orphans, who said, “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science.” This is a world-class textbook case of a false dichotomy.

We believe in God and we believe in science. The study of the natural world is the study of God’s creation: the search for causes and the ability to make that search is evidence for God who is the explanation for the origin of the universe and of life, for the laws of physics, and of logic, the uncanny applicability of mathematics to the natural world, the fact of ethical duties and obligations which Atheists also recognize, why there is something rather than nothing, etc. These evidence God. God is the uncaused first cause: as even those same Greek philosophers understood when they spoke of the unmoved mover.

God created chronology, linear time, whereby effect follows from cause-linear time, boy oh boy I tell ya’: it’s just one thing after another!


Grade F on knowledge of biblical theology and poorly attempted employment of logic. We agree that all claims should be evaluated by evidence and logic, as we have done in this article.

Not one of the 10 points is logically sound and commit formal and informal logical fallacies such as non-sequiturs, false refutations, hasty generalizations, straw men/straw God, etc. As a result, the 10 statements failed to provide logical arguments, evidence, or proof that God does not exist.

Also employed were flawed tactics common to Atheists such as attacking “religion” rather than any specific rational description of a religion such as biblical theology. Also, if any flaw is found in any one religion, all religion is thereby rejected. This relies on hasty generalization.

Moreover, we encountered two startling admissions for an Atheist to make. Namely, that the universe is designed and the existence of objective good and evil. We pray that if they are in a genuine search for truth, they engage with Jesus Who stated:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)Ω

This one was a team effort by Jodie Bishop, Scott Walton of Disciples of YHWH in Christ and

Ken AmmiKen Ammi is a long-time researcher and lecturer on issues pertaining to Christian apologetics. He has a background in Eastern Mysticism and the New Age. He is Jewish and has accepted Jesus as Messiah. You can find him online at: True free Thinker

© 2020, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.

Link partner: pokerseri autowin88 vegasslot77 mantra88 ligasedayu warungtoto luxury138 luxury777 bos88 bro138 sky77 roma77 zeus138 batman138 dolar138 gas138 ligaciputra babe138 indobet rtp zeus luxury333 ligagg88