This will not include arguments that are actually good questions. Many arguments atheists make can be considered good arguments as they tend to reflect thoughtful and important questions that theologians have actually been talking about centuries. However, this has no bearing on whether or not you act like you're literally the first person to ever think about that question. Please also don't do that, no matter how legitimate the question you have about faith really is. Basically everything has been brought up before, you aren't throwing anyone a curve ball.
These will include arguments against God as a concept, religion as a concept, and some individual religious claims. While of course arguments against individual religious claims can be made by proponents of other religions and not exclusively by atheists, I'm not making an entirely separate post for those claims so I'm lumping them in here.
These are in no particular order (at this time).
Which "god" are you talking about?
What atheists using this argument mean to imply is that theists arguing for the existence of God are arguing for the existence of a particular "god", even going so far as to include the many perceived deities of pantheistic religions. The atheist is attempting to argue that this God is arbitrary because it is being defined by a particular religious doctrine which has yet to be proven true. Additionally, this argument has the perceived benefit of requiring that the theist must prove their religion is the one true religion before they can prove that "their God" exists. At the end of the day, this argument only works against theists who also don't understand why this argument is faulty.
The Answer:
Any theist worth their salt is talking about The Unmoved Mover, The Uncaused First Cause, the one, the only, concept understood to be God. While someone may be a Christian or of x y z faith, the concept understood to be God is not bound to a religious doctrine - the Unmoved Mover was not even lost on the pantheistic Greek and Roman religions of their time - they did not believe Zeus to be the Unmoved Mover. They didn't think any one of their particular gods created the universe, life, and all existence. There were their gods, and then there was whatever caused existence to exist. The concept of what caused existence to exist is known as God.
The concept understood to be God is the reason why anything exists at all. The concept understood to be God is the literal cause of existence - the timeless, spaceless, and immaterial maximally great being who willed this plane of existence into being. Whether that God is best described by any particular religious doctrine is a completely different concept and argument. No religion is arguing for a different Unmoved Mover - they all agree this Creator exists, they are simply debating upon the qualities of that being. There are no different "Gods," there is one God, one Uncaused First Cause, and each religion has disagreements as to how to best describe that being.
Indeed, there cannot be any different "God." For there to be two separate beings, there must be something unique about them to distinguish them from one another. If the concept understood to be God is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, all powerful, all knowledgeable personal Creator, what possible attributes could separate this particular concept from another concept? The only way to do so would be to have one of those others "gods" be lesser than this maximally great being, thereby making that being not God by definition in the first place.
The argument "Which "god" are you talking about," demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophical concept of God.
Similar arguments:
Any attempt at boiling God down to "an imaginary friend," "a sky fairy," or "old man in the sky," also miss this same philosophical point. The theist's argument is that there is a cause to existence and that cause is the concept understood to be God. Attempting to deny that there is a reason why anything exists at all is not simply a philosophical misunderstanding, it's intellectually insincere - clearly we exist, so there must be a reason for that. In order to argue against the existence of God, you must replace Him with something else - you can't simply explain Him away, as you are still left to explain why anything exists at all without Him.
There is no evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist.
A specific argument is being made here. It is different from, "I don't believe in God because I don't believe there is evidence that He exists," (this is an understandable stance) it is "because there is no evidence that God exists, it means that he does not." It is an absolute argument. The claim is that a lack of evidence proves an absence of evidence due to the nonexistence of the concept. This argument demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of logic itself and is actually incredibly harmful to the atheist making the argument - any alert person can make the atheist using this argument look like a complete fool.
The Answer:
Simply: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Things do not not exist until evidence is found for them. This would imply that anything undiscovered does not exist. It would imply that we have discovered everything that there is to discover, as there could not possibly be anything outside of the evidence which we have already uncovered for the existence of things we know to exist. It strictly misses very obvious realities that are demonstrable and evident throughout our entire lives.
Even if it were true that "there is no evidence for God," it would not prove that He doesn't exist. That is not how things work. The only thing that a lack of evidence does is make it unlikely that something exists. If there is a lack of evidence for something, it is not the same as having evidence that shows explicitly that something is not true. If I claim I was punched in the face by a masked assailant at an event, but there was a lack of evidence of this occurrence - no bruises, no lingering pain, no traces of a perpetrator, no eyewitnesses, no footprints, fingerprints, DNA, photo or video evidence or otherwise - it does not mean that it has been proven that I have actually not been punched in the face. It simply makes my claim unlikely - possibly highly unlikely, but not definitively false. If I claim I was punched in the face, but there is evidence showing that I was actually not - a full length video recording of the event at which I claimed to be punched in which I am not punched, for example - that would prove that I was not punched in the face.
If you aim to disprove God, you'd need evidence proving that He does not exist. You cannot simply cite a lack of evidence as proof that He doesn't exist - you can't do that for anything. That has never been, never is, and never will be an acceptable method of proving something - anything, not even just God. You can't cite a lack of evidence as proof that I don't own a cat - maybe I'm just super good at hiding it.
All religions are essentially the same.
This argument attempts to equate all religion doctrine as "being essentially the same," thereby enabling the atheist to dismiss all of it with one fell swoop - basically using just one religion to disprove another, or all of them. This is a fallacy of composition - it assumes that because some parts of all religions are similar, that all religions are therefore the same. It misunderstands the concept of religion and of various religions as a whole.
The Answer:
Different religions make vastly different claims. Each religion has some sort of description of the concept understood to be God and answers the four fundamental questions: How did we get here, why are we here, what are we here for, and where are we going. There are also non-religious answers to these questions. Attempting to equate different religious doctrines for these similarities is absurd, especially considering that the similarities literally stop there - and even though the answers to the questions are all present, all of those answers are different.
Attempting to equate the claims of various religions ignores that many of them are contradictory - they cannot both be correct at the same time. Christianity claims that faith in Jesus is the only way to Heaven. Islam claims that faith in Jesus is a "Go directly to jail," card. These claims are in absolute and exact opposition with one another. Many Eastern religions claim that God is one or all, while Christianity claims God is a trinity. You aren't just comparing oranges and apples, you're trying to say oranges are essentially rabbits.
This claim ignores all of the vast and contradictory claims of religions and attempts to classify them as all being the same by the absolute most vague similarities - it ignores that Judaism believes a savior has yet to come and Christianity believes the savior has come as Jesus by just lumping having beliefs about stuff into the same category.
Clumping religions together as one lets the atheist escape having to disprove each religion one by one based on their own individual claims. Just like scientific theories, religious truth claims must all be tested on their own merits. The atheist wishes to brush this one under the rug and ignore the stark reality that disproving one religion does not disprove them all by attempting to claim that they are all actually the same thing.
The smartest people are all atheists.
This is an appeal to authority and is a failure for a claim from its very basic form. What the atheist attempts to do is cite "smart people" as an authority for what is or is not true. The atheist makes this claim to attempt to disarm the theist, essentially calling him "not smart," by induction, as well as dismissing theism as a "not smart" thing to believe. He also does himself the honor of classifying himself as a "smart person," for being an atheist. This claim is not only logically fallacious, but it is ego stroking at its finest. The atheist says that he is most certainly a smart person for being an atheist, while the theist is absolutely a not smart person for not being an atheist.
The Answer:
The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy for a reason. It is 100% irrelevant what any particular group of people thinks if they are wrong. In other words, if all of the smartest people believed that puppies could fly, they would still be wrong. If everyone in the entire world believed God was not real, it would not affect whether or not God was real. How smart someone is does not affect how correct they are - it can lead to the reasonable belief that they could be right, if, for example, they proved themselves to be an expert on the matter or otherwise very reliable, but smart people have been wrong about stuff and will continue to be wrong about stuff forever. In fact, if they are unable to understand when and how they are wrong, they may actually not be very smart.
This fallacious argumentation occurs because of similar fallacies of composition. People do this all the time with "scientists": anything a scientists says is probably correct. After all, it's a scientist. They're smart people!
I'll show why this is silly with an example. When I was a child, I didn't understand why I had to go to different doctors for things. I also didn't understand why I had to go to a different building to have my braces worked on than I had to go to for regular dentist check ups. I didn't know why my mother had to go to a different doctor than I did, and I didn't understand why, when I was diagnosed as possibly anemic, I had to go to a different doctor than the one who said that. Why weren't all these doctors and dentists all able to do everything? And why wasn't my guidance counselor, Dr. Rudolf, a "real" doctor?
As a child, I didn't understand the concept of a specialist - I didn't understand that not all doctors were all trained to all be able to do everything and I didn't understand that a "doctorate" does not make someone a doctor of medicine. Atheists tend to not understand that not all scientists are all trained to be able to understand and explain everything. "Science" is such a broad category of things, it would be quite the accomplishment for someone to be an expert in every single field of science. Atheists think even engineers are experts on science - they aren't even scientists! I mean, atheists even think they themselves are reliable scientific experts. The irony is scientists are usually specifically not even trained in theology. They are not only not experts on the subject, they tend to be dramatically more misinformed about theism than your everyday person is about science.
Similar arguments:
Appeal to popularity arguments that run along the lines of, "more people are becoming atheists," or "more people are atheists," fail for the same reasons. It is irrelevant how many people are atheists, they could all be wrong. Considering that atheists believe theists were wrong even when they were the majority, it is strange how they manage to make this fallacious argument with a straight face.
You're only x religion because of where you were born. If you were born in y, you'd be z religion.
The atheist's argument here is that you didn't pick your religion, you just wound up in it due to circumstance and your belief in it, therefore, is unfounded and without true reasoning or understanding. If you, specifically you, happened to be born in a Hindu or Muslim home, you'd be one of those religions. But, you were born in a Christian household, so you're a Christian, and it has nothing to do with your personal responsibility for your beliefs or critical thinking skills - you're just a victim of circumstance.
The Answer:
This argument is so popular and pervasive that even Richard Dawkins uses it. Surely it can't be that obviously fallacious if Richard Dawkins uses it, after all, he's a "smart person."
This argument oddly ignores where the atheist gets his belief from - if an atheist was raised in an atheist household and remains an atheist, doesn't he fall victim to the same argument?
Another strange thing this argument does is ignore the vast numbers of people who have swapped from one religion to another - including people who have gone from theism to atheism and vice versa, yes, people who were raised atheist and became religious.
It also ignores a crucially important point - you aren't simply religious because your parents were. You have to make a conscious and purposeful decision to become a [religious adjective here]. In order to be a/an anything, you have to make the purposeful decision to be that thing. A person who believes in x because their parents did, and for no other reason, is not in the same weight class as a person who actively made a conscious choice to believe in that thing.
On the flip side, some people's "religious upbringings" were very lackadaisical. Being "raised Christian" is meaningless if, the very first time that you considered the realities of religion, you rejected it. This is what I did - my first conscious decision of faith was to become an atheist. I was not actually a Christian before that - I did not make a conscious decision to follow Jesus, I did not commit my life to Him - I did not purposefully and willingly make a genuine decision out of my belief and convictions to be a Christian. That wasn't until later, after a more in-depth analysis of the situation. Simply put, I specifically am not a Christian "simply because I was brought up in a Christian household." That erases the reality of my lived experiences - the many years I lived as an atheist after becoming self-aware enough to even question what religion was in the first place.
The important point here is that this argument ignores the obvious and demonstrable reality that many many people are in fact not the religion of their upbringing. If this were the case, why are there Middle Eastern Christians being set on fire inside of cages for being apostates? Why are there Chinese Christians worshiping in secret underground churches to avoid no-due-process execution if their government finds them? Why are some of the most insightful and fascinating Christian apologists former Hindus, Muslims, and atheists? Bottom line is that this argument ignores provable reality.
I don't have to research theology because I know it's wrong.
This argument attempts to dismiss theology, God, religion, and all related subjects as entirely worthless. The idea behind this argument is that those subjects are so wholly false that someone doesn't even need to know about them in order to dismiss them. This argument runs off the assumption that theology can be dismissed without further questions - it is the action of presupposing that God does not exist put into words. An argument like this also tends to do the atheist the favor of putting himself on higher intellectual grounds - the atheist is so smart, that he knows theism is false without even knowing what it is!
The Answer:
You are making the statement that you literally do not need to have a fundamental understanding of that which you are arguing against. You are furthermore insisting that you have the power of divination, allowing you to know whether or not something is wrong without even knowing what it is.
If I were to say that I don't need to study evolution because I know it's wrong, what would the response likely be? (side note: I have thoroughly researched evolution.) Now, I can say I don't need to study evolution because I don't actually care or I am not interested, but this is merely being willfully ignorant. The statement that I do not have to because I know it's wrong is a different statement - it's a positive claim, an argument for an absolute. I would not be caught dead arguing against something of which I have no knowledge - that the atheist would do this while simultaneously proclaiming his intellectual superiority is astounding.
This is an odd case of special pleading - it's like reverse special pleading. You are insisting that the area of study of theology is unique from any other in that it can be dismissed outright for no real reason. You are presupposing that it is wrong, making a claim without any evidence that it is in fact simply ignorable - for no reason other than "because." Nothing else works this way. There is no area of study or concept where you could claim it to be irrelevant specifically without knowing anything about it. This would get you laughed out of the room for any other idea, so how is it somehow acceptable here?
Most importantly, this statement is an admission of a losing position. You are admitting you lack any understanding of the subject and are therefore not a trustworthy person for any information relating to it. If you make this claim, you are essentially saying, "anything I say about theism, God, and religion is entirely dismissable due to my fundamental lack of understanding surrounding those subjects." Don't be surprised if theists respond to your attempts at using this argument with "K, bye!"
I guess you don't eat shellfish/I guess you stone adulterers/I guess you consider a menstruating woman to be unclean (any citation of an old Mosaic law).
The argument made here is specifically against the religious doctrine of Christianity. This argument is an attempted "gotcha!" by the atheist (or person affiliated with another religion). This argument can be made with any old Mosaic law - those found around Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc. The idea here is not that the atheist does actually think the Christian does these things, but that the atheist is assuming they do not and that they are, therefore, a bad Christian and/or going to hell etc.
The Answer:
This line of argumentation ignores that the Old Testament and the New Testament are different covenants. The OT was the covenant before Jesus and the NT is the covenant formed by Jesus. The old laws existed so that those who believed in the promises of God could demonstrate their devotion to Him and trust in His promise through physical rituals.
Once Jesus came, the new covenant was created, replacing the old one - as in, it doesn't apply anymore. Jesus changed the rules dramatically - some notable changes were allowing anyone to enter the kingdom of Heaven through faith in Jesus (before it was just the chosen people, the Jews), establishing the law as a matter of the heart rather than just physical law (it's not enough to just not physically sin, it becomes a matter of intention) and the "new" commandment (love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself).
The misunderstanding that the OT and NT are different covenants leads to many other kinds of misunderstandings about the contents of the bible. For example, the physical law to stone adulterers is not contradicted by Jesus not stoning the adulterer who was brought before Him - He was establishing a new covenant, a new law, therefore the old is overwritten by the new - there is no contradiction as no one is attempting to say that they are both true at the same time.
Jesus didn't come to abolish the old law, it says so right in the bible!
The atheist (or person of other religion) attempts to use this argument as proof that the Old Testament, and therefore its old Mosaic laws, are in fact still applicable to Christians today - thus, we can't eat shellfish or wear clothing of mixed fabrics and should stone adulterers. The argument comes with the quotation of Matthew 5:17, though usually not the entire verse. It is not uncommon to see the quotation...
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets
This is an interesting case of taking a bible verse out of context, as it's not even the end of the sentence.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. - Matthew 5:17
Even when admitting the full verse, atheists will still attempt to argue that this verse is actually proving that the old laws of the Old Testament are still active today.
The Answer:
This argument ironically takes the very passage that establishes that the old law is no longer applicable and attempts to proclaim that it says the opposite.
This argument, as mentioned, attempts to take this verse out of context and willfully distorts the meanings of the words used. What is in fact being said here is that, yes, Jesus did not come to abolish the old law - the old law cannot be abolished, if it were, it would have been arbitrary and therefore meaningless. He came to fulfill it. This misunderstanding is somewhat understandable because this is not the terminology we would use today to explain the concept that is being described here. What Jesus is saying is that the requirements of the old law are being fulfilled by Him - as in, the reason they were necessary is being filled in with Jesus. We no longer need to live by the old law, the old law being the way in which we demonstrated our faith in God's promise, because God's promise is here in Jesus. Now that God's promise, Jesus, has come, the old law's purpose has been fulfilled.
Another wording of this explanation, the reason we were commanded not to eat shellfish and wear mixed fibers etc. was an attempt at being clean of sin - they were the laws by which we could attain salvation (through demonstrating our trust in God's promise). But now, Jesus is our salvation - He has cleaned us of sin. He fulfilled the purposes of the old laws - they are no longer necessary.
Furthering that, there are more instances than just this one passage of the usage of having the law being fulfilled through Jesus in the bible, and none proclaiming the opposite. For instance, Romans 8:3-4:
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
The law was unable to cleanse us because we, as a broken people, are sinful. We couldn't possibly fulfill the law on our own, so God sent Jesus, who lived a sinless and perfect life, to fulfill that law for us as we could not do it on our own. If we accept God's free gift, and walk in the spirit with Him, we will be saved through Jesus' sacrifice. I.e., basically the entire base message of Christianity. It's hard to imagine that a lone atheist on the internet managed to dismantle the core concept of Christianity with one half of a bible verse. To make that a little more clear: if the old laws were indeed not fulfilled, that would nullify the entire reason behind Jesus having come in the first place. Since it's made very clear many, many times why Jesus came and what His sacrifice did for us, then it's safe to say that the old law has indeed been fulfilled through Him. That was literally the point of Jesus.
General concepts of argumentation:
Dismissing evidence for God without explanation.
This position stems from the atheist's belief that his stance is a negative claim that does not need to be proven and it's the theist's job to provide evidence for God, which the atheist presupposes will not happen and therefore denies anything presented as evidence. This practice flies in the face of how earnest debate is meant to occur. If you use this chain of thought, you are not winning the argument. You are willfully and volitionally taking on a position of ignorance and insincerity.
The Answer:
You do not prove you're correct by telling someone else "you are wrong." If you wish to engage in any sincere form of debate, you must refute claims that you don't believe to be true. For example, in responding to a theist's logical argument for the existence of God (the cosmological, for example) a response like, "That's ridiculous," has done effectively nothing. If you wish to take on a negative position at first, go ahead. But as soon as someone makes a positive claim, you cannot refute that claim by simply saying it is not a claim. The claim must be refuted or you are not debating - you are just being bullheaded. Saying "that's not convincing," "that's not evidence," "that's illogical/irrational," "that's/you're stupid," are not arguments. You have proven nothing - you are committing the same error you are accusing the theist of committing, that is, making claims without evidence.
By engaging in behavior this way, you are ignoring the realities of logic and debate. A logical argument must be proven to be sound or unsound, the premises must be true or untrue. You don't prove that they are untrue by saying, "that isn't true." You have to provide some sort of refutation to the claim in order to have any validity. Failure to refute a claim means that it has been unchallenged. An unchallenged claim, in an actual debate, is typically a "win" for the person making the claim.
This applies to everything. If I claim the earth is flat (I do not believe this, just to get that out of the way), you don't prove that I'm wrong by calling me a crazy idiot. If a crazy idiot said the earth was round, would he be wrong? You must provide refutations to the claims for evidence that the earth is flat or you must provide evidence that the earth is not flat, or else the claims that the earth is flat have been unchallenged. To explain further here, you do not have to engage the arguments being made, but if you desire to debate and make reasonable arguments for your position, you do not so so by simply dismissing the argument. What I am explaining here is a fundamental aspect of debate in the first place. If you wish to simply call a theist stupid and not engage their arguments, you have the right to do that, but please be aware you are not "winning" the debate when you do so.
Clarifications:
This, of course, doesn't apply if someone simply states a stance without evidence. If someone just says, "The earth is flat," that isn't an argument, it's a statement. However, don't be fooled - an argument like "God is real because the bible is true," is an argument (though an admittedly bad one to start out the gate with).
The claim of evidence is "the bible is true." This is not the statement for which they are arguing, their argument is that "God is real," and their evidence is "the bible is true." If you dismiss this claim, ignore it, call them stupid, or say that it's not evidence, you aren't doing yourself any favors. This argument is entirely sound - if the bible is true, then God most certainly is real due to the claims within the bible! This logic is sound. In order to refute this argument, you must provide evidence or reasoning for their claim, "the bible is true," to be wrong (or, possibly, that the bible doesn't prove God is real even if it is true if you want to go that route). The debate, in this case, on whether or not God is real would focus on the validity of the bible. And, no, the "burden of proof" is not on them to prove the bible is true because that's not their argument, it's their evidence.
That brings up another one...
Anything regarding the "Burden of Proof"
Atheists love to shift the burden of proof as often as possible, and they do so successfully to the unprepared theist. This concept of argumentation generally rests on the atheist's belief that "atheism is the default position" and therefore any claims of anything outside of atheism are claims that are "guilty until proven innocent." The reason why atheism is not a default claim is a somewhat separate debate to have. The focus here is the typical atheist's misunderstanding of what even is the burden of proof.
The Answer:
A legal definition of the burden of proof:
Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdiction, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.
What we can gather from this is that the prosecutor has the burden of proof. Basically, if you started the argument, you automatically have the burden of proof, regardless of whether you believe your stance is "default" or not. You don't get to start an argument by demanding the theist prove God exists - you don't start an argument by demanding someone else, someone who was not arguing with you until you sparked it, defend themselves. Defend themselves against what? - they haven't said anything. If you wish to sincerely engage with them and question why they believe in God, that's different, but to air drop into a conversation you were not a part of and demand evidence of claims is not how an argument works.
From there, whoever last made a claim with evidence cannot have the burden of proof. You don't get to respond to someone's evidence by telling them that they have to provide further evidence. If you believe their evidence is unsatisfactory, it's now your burden to explain why you feel that way.
This concept of argumentation fails to understand the very basics of debate. Attempting to proclaim that atheism is the default position is special pleading - it is a line of thinking that goes against the very nature of logical discourse. Nowhere else can you inject yourself into a conversation as the instigator, or prosecutor, and demand someone else prove their position - why should atheists be allowed to do this? If you heard someone walking down the street say, "Joe is a total jerk," you can't approach that person and demand they substantiate their claims that Joe is a total jerk. It wasn't even an argument until you started it. The "rules" of argument cannot apply until it becomes an argument.
Getting Philosophical:
To actively make a claim that the burden of proof lies with someone else is, in itself, a positive proof claim that must be backed by evidence. Anyone can turn the tables right around here - whether you're arguing theology or bumper stickers, though it is admittedly quite a tangent. The very nature of making a claim requires evidence - even if your claim is "you have to provide evidence!" You must explain why that person must provide evidence or else your claim is unsubstantiated!
Arguments based off of the concept of science
These arguments revolve around the idea that "science explains everything," "we can only know things through science," "science has made God unnecessary," etc. The atheist is arguing that religion was a placeholder for knowledge - and now that we know how things actually happen, we don't need "God" to explain this. This usually runs off of the idea that ancient people used to blame rain, drought, tornadoes, too much sun, and bad hair days on the wills of God or gods.
The Answer:
Science and religion are not at odds. The belief that there is a war between religion and science, or God and science, is not accurate. Indeed, if God is real, then He created the laws by which our world operates - all the scientific discoveries are just us finally coming to understand the complex ways in which God constructed the world.
What's more interesting is that the one thing science still cannot explain is why anything exists at all without God. All of the scientific information we have about the origins of the universe and how it was created are analogous with a Creator - it all points to an Uncaused First Cause outside of time, space, and matter willing existence into being through a personal action.
Furthermore, science is not the only method through which we can understand the world around us. In fact, there are a great many things that science cannot prove, but we know exist. Science cannot even prove itself - there is no way to test whether or not science exists, or can be trusted, that involve the scientific method.
We can also know things through logic and philosophy. Some things are also self-evident and don't need to be proven through science. Don't get confused, saying something is self-evident does not make it self-evident. A self-evident statement would be along the lines of "I think, therefore I am." Whether or not minds exist cannot be tested scientifically, but they clearly exist - if they did not, we would not be able to think about whether or not they do. This is self-evident.
Indeed, science and God are good friends. The establishment of early science was because of the early Church. The religious should not be afraid of science and the scientific should not be so quick to assume that God did not put into the place the systems we explore through science today.
Fin~
No comments:
Post a Comment