Doesn’t the Beauty and Majesty of the Natural World Prove that God Exists?

A question that gets frequently asked of atheists is how we can possibly look at all the wonders of the natural world and not believe in God? Now, sure, this is partially just a restatement of the classic “Argument from Design” (which I cover in detail here), and it also involves a fair amount of arguing from ignorance or incredulity (“I can’t personally imagine how such a thing is possible without God, therefore it must not be possible”). But I think it actually goes a little deeper than that.

After all, once upon a time, we really did have no idea what caused sunsets, how mountains formed, how rock structures came to looked like they were carved into interesting shapes, etc., so it only made sense to think that such things were specifically created for our benefit. But now we obviously are able to explain how all these things are caused by purely natural forces and principles, so this question can’t just be due to sheer ignorance of how the natural world works. There must be more to it than that.

But hey — maybe all this means is that God created all the natural laws in the first place and therefore is ultimately responsible for it turning out the way it has. Sure, God didn’t personally sculpt the amazing rock formations seen in Utah’s Zion National Park or the Grand Canyon, but can’t we still give Him the credit for creating the rocks and wind and water and setting up a natural system whereby rocks can be eroded by wind and water? And sure, maybe God doesn’t personally paint every single beautiful sunset by hand, but we can still praise Him for creating the water cycles that causes clouds to form and making it so that sunlight refracts when it strikes water droplets, etc., right? And, OK, so maybe God didn’t personally cause those majestic mountains to rise out of the crust and get covered with snow, but we can still worship Him for coming up with the idea of plate tectonics and snow in the first place, right? After all, God created the entire universe from scratch, and therefore every beautiful and awesome and great thing we see in that universe must therefore be the result of God’s will, right?

So, maybe the argument is not simply about how could all these things exist without God but instead why would they all be so majestic and beautiful and awe-inspiring without God. Surely God must have set things up so that the end results would be so amazing, right?

OK, let’s play that game. The natural world is full of amazing, beautiful, wonderful and awe-inspiring things that prove that God exists and loves us enough to share all this beauty with us. Gotcha. Now let’s take a look at all the things in the natural world that aren’t so great shall we? Let’s look at the volcanic eruptions instead of just looking at the majestic mountains. Let’s look at the vast dust storms instead of just looking at the pretty sunsets. Let’s look at the floods and earthquakes and droughts and lightning strikes and tornadoes and hurricanes and tsunamis instead of just looking at the amazing rock formations. And then go look at the children dying of genetic diseases and the ugliness of things like Ebola and smallpox and parasitic infections and flesh-eating bacteria. Care to look at some picture of people with half of their face eaten off? Seriously — go ahead and do a Google image search for flesh-eating bacteria. It’s OK, I’ll wait for you to finish vomiting at the sight and come back here.

.

.

.

Still with me? Wonderful. Now, after looking at all that ugliness in the world, you go ahead and tell me that it’s all a testament to just how depraved and sadistic and cruel God is, since He created the universe from scratch and therefore every horrible and ugly and terrible thing we see in that universe must also be the result of God’s will.

• No, you can’t claim that the ugliness is just random stuff not under God’s direct control or all the work of Satan.
• No, you can’t claim that all the bad stuff is the result of man’s exercise of free will, since I didn’t even mention anything related to man’s inhumanity to man.
• No, you can’t claim that Adam and Eve sinned and somehow caused the entire universe to enter a “fallen” state since (a) that would mean that a supposedly loving God decided to punish the entire universe for the sins of two people and (b) it would also negate all the previously “great” things that you previously gave God credit for. I mean, seriously — either the world is full of ugliness because it is in a fallen state or else it is full of beauty and greatness because of God. You can’t have it both ways.

So, please. Go ahead. You admit that all the ugliness in the world is evidence that God is a sadistic bastard (or, perhaps doesn’t exist at all), and I’ll admit that the beauty in the natural world is evidence that He does exist and loves us so much that He wants to share His glory with us. You don’t get to just look at the good and ignore the bad and claim that it somehow proves something.

---

Having said all that, let me just make it clear that I do think there are many beautiful, majestic and awe-inspiring sights in the natural world, both here on earth and out in the rest of the known universe. And no, I don’t think the entire universe is a dark and depressing place just because there are also many ugly, hideous and scary things as well. I take the good with the bad and understand that this is what happens when you have a universe that operates on impersonal natural principles and that wasn’t designed specifically for our benefit.

No, All Theists Do Not Worship the Same God

Despite the fact that there are many thousands of different religions and sects within those religions, each with their own unique take on what, exactly, “God” is and how He acts (or what, exactly, “gods” are and how they act, for the various polytheistic religions out there), time and again I keep seeing people claim that “it’s all the same God” or that “all theists worship the same God, even if they call Him by a different name.”

Now, growing up as a Christian (a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and being taught that the Bible was literally true, this claim was pretty much required in order for the religion as a whole to make any sort of sense. After all, the Bible clearly talks about one God who create the Earth and everything else, so there can’t possibly be any other gods out there. And, since the Biblical timeline is supposed to trace back to the beginning of human civilization, the only choice is to assume that every other ancient religion (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, etc.) was actually somehow a corruption of this original true faith in the one God of the Bible. Historical and archaeological evidence to the contrary be damned, that’s our story and we’re sticking with it, since to do otherwise would be to admit that other civilizations talked about completely different “gods” long before the events in the Old Testament (including the creation of the world) ever took place. OK, so while this view is not actually supportable by evidence, I can understand why people would cling to it.

A completely different claim, however, is often made that the three so-called “Abrahamic” religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all worship the same God, despite the fact that most of the actual devout members of each of those three religions would probably not agree with this claim. All three religions, the argument goes, all have their roots in the Old Testament, each one building upon that basic concept of God and therefore all actually worshiping the same God when you get right down to it. In fact, it is often said, the word “Allah” in Arabic simply means “the God” and this is a reference to the God described in the Bible.

Except… this really doesn’t make much sense. Just because all three religions have a concept of God that can be traced to the same root, the interpretations and extra information added on by each religion is so great as to render the resulting concept of God wholly unrecognizable from one religion to the next. Yes, both Christians and Muslims claim to worship the God described in the Old Testament, but they have changed the core definition of that God so much as to produce an entirely different concept of God.

One big is example is the core Christian concept that Jesus Christ is divine (i.e., that Jesus is, in essense, an aspect of God). You can’t have Christianity without Christ, and the fact of Jesus’s atoning sacrifice is what evidences the divine mercy that is an essential part of God’s very nature. Jews, however, will absolutely not accept that Jesus was the literal son of God, let alone that he is actually an intrinsic part of God. The Jewish concept of God simply will not allow God to have a human component, and the idea of an atoning sacrifice to provide salvation to humanity is a foreign concept. As soon as Christians took the Jewish notion of God and added Jesus to that notion, it ceased to be the same God. Similarly, the fact that Muslims do not accept Jesus as divine (“just” another prophet) means that they do not actually worship the same concept or description of God, regardless if they claim that their belief derives from Biblical sources.

[Thought experiment: Take a 2010 Honda Civic coupe. Chop the frame and add some steel to lengthen it. Hack at the body and rework the pillars until you can fit two more doors so it’s now a sedan. Remove the 4-cylinder naturally aspirated gasoline engine and replace it a 6-cylnider supercharged diesel engine. Convert it to all-wheel drive. And then remove all the badges and replace them with ones that say “Smith Motors.” Now, take this car and put it side-by-side with a brand new 2017 Honda Civic Coupe and try to justify claiming that they are basically the same car. Sure, they can both trace their roots to the same original model and style of car, but are they really still the same?]

So, then, why do people keep insisting that all Abrahamic faiths do, in fact, worship the same God? Well, some of these folks are legitimate scholars of comparative religions and are merely pointing out the historical fact that each later religion claimed to be based on the previous ones. But that’s not really the same thing as “worshiping the same God,” though, is it? Or that each religion has the same understanding of God’s essential nature? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, and that’s because legitimate religious scholars (many of whom aren’t even religious themselves) often don’t have an agenda or an axe to grind.

In my experience, however, there is another group of people who make the claim that all Abrahamic faiths worship the same God, however. These are not serious, impartial religious scholars, but instead appear to be deeply religious individuals, usually of the Christian or Islamic persuasion. And their assertion that all Abrahamic faiths worship the same God seems to be a direct response to the issue raised time and again by atheists that, since there are so many different Gods worshiped by so many different religions, the likelihood of any one God being the true God is not very high. “It doesn’t matter that there are so many different religions,” they will claim, “since they all basically worship the same God.” And this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to perpetuate the false “theist vs. atheist” dichotomy I explored in a previous post:

The issue isn't "Theists vs. Athsists" but "Theists vs. Everybody Else."

As long as these believers can argue that all theists are somehow presenting a unified front when it comes to a belief in God, they can ignore the vast differences among the various religious beliefs and avoid needing to justify why their particular God concept is the only one worth talking about or needing to defend their beliefs against, not just atheists, but every other belief system that contradicts theirs.

The issue Isn’t “Theists vs. Atheists” but “Theists vs. Everybody Else”

In just about every debate regarding the existence of God, the opposing sides are usually theists (those who believe in God) and atheists (those who do not believe in God). Similarly, here on Quora, theists of all stripes typically post questions directed at “atheists” (or “agnostics,” under the mistaken belief, apparently, that an atheist is somebody who claims to know that God doesn’t exist while an agnostic merely is unsure). As a result, the issue in question is usually framed in terms of “There is a God” (or, perhaps, “It is rational to believe in God”) vs. “There is no God” (or, perhaps, “It is not rational to believe in God”).

However, this presumption that the issue is always (or even primarily) between theists and atheists involve a massive amount of hubris on the part of the theists. It requires the theist to assume as an absolute given that their particular concept of God, among all the many thousands of concepts of God throughout all of human history (including the many thousands of concepts of God held by religious people of all stripes in the world today) is the only concept of God worth discussing. When a Christian asks a question about why atheists don’t believe in “God,” or when a Muslim or a Hindu sets out to prove the existence of “God,” they don’t even bother to define the properties of the God they are discussing. For that matter, when a Baptist or a Born Again Christian or a Catholic or member of any other Christian denomination sets out to prove the existence of “God,” they never ever acknowledge that their understanding of God may be unique to their particular denomination of Christianity, let alone to Christianity in general. It’s always, “I know that [my] God exists, why can’t you atheists agree with me?”

This is, of course, why many atheists respond to questions posted by theists by first asking, “Which God?” And this seems to annoy many theists, who just can't seem to grasp the idea that there are billions of other people who have a different understanding of God (or gods) and who are just as sincere in their beliefs. “Obviously,” these theists seem to be saying, “all of those beliefs are just ignorant superstitions. We’re talking about my God who, unique in all of human history, just happens to be real.” Did I mention the hubris involved in such an assumption? Devout Christians are just as convinced that their concept of God is the right one, as devout Jews are convinced that their concept of God is the right one, as devout Muslims are convinced that their concept of God is the right one, as devout Hindus are convinced that their concept of God is the right one, as devout Zoroastrians are convinced that their concept of God is the right one, etc., and within each major religion the numerous sects are all equally convinced that their concept of God is the right one and that everybody else has got it wrong.

So, yes, it would be nice if theists would specify exactly what sort of “God” they are talking about when asking questions or attempting to make arguments about “God” instead of just assuming that (a) everybody knows what their concept of God is and (b) their concept of God is the only one worth discussing. And then, rather than framing the debate as a discussion as to whether “there is a God” (the theist side) or “there isn’t a God” (the atheist side), the theists should be forced to acknowledge that what they are really arguing for is the proposition, “My personal concept of God is the correct one and every other concept of God ever held throughout the entire history of humanity, including the belief that there is no God, is wrong.” And then they should be forced to defend that proposition instead of just using the same tired “logical” arguments to “prove” the existence of some sort of nebulous “creator” that applies equally well to most of the concepts of God worshiped by various religions.

Is America a Christian Nation Founded on Judaeo-Christian Values?

Time and again, when ostensibly devout Christians here in America want to exercise their right to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs, they trot out the well-worn nostrum that “America is a Christian nation” or “America was founded on Judaeo-Christian values” as a justification. This “foundation on Judaeo-Christian values” bit is so important, in fact, that some people even think its appropriate to put large stone monuments commemorating the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

But was America or its laws actually founded on Judaeo-Christian values (to the exclusion, presumably, of all other values)?

Well, to start with, we have the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

So, given the fact that the founders certainly could have specifically stated that America was a Christian nation founded on Judaeo-Christian values and instead chose to state that would be no official state religion, it certainly seems as though the founders at least didn’t think that their new country was a Christian nation founded on Judaeo-Christian values. But maybe that was just an oversight on their part.

Well, what about Article Six of the very same Constitution, which states in part:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Again, the founders could have stated that only good, God-fearing Christians would be eligible to serve in public office, but instead chose to say that it essentially didn’t matter what religion (if any) somebody belonged to. Still, maybe they just assumed that all Americans would be Christians and this was to prevent bickering between, say, Catholics and Protestants. Hey — it’s possible, right?

And then, of course, we have the famous “Separation of Church and State” as described by Thomas Jefferson:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

But surely Thomas Jefferson was an outlier, right? One wacky “deist” in a sea of devout Christians, obviously. Surely the rest of the founders and early Americans were confident that America was, first and foremost, a Christian nation and were not afraid to announce this fact openly, right? Well, not according to the Treaty of Tripoli, which was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, received unanimous ratification from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and states in part:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

But, hey — maybe they were just lying for the sake of getting the treaty done. Not that lying is exactly a “Christian” value, mind you, but that’s politics for you.

---

OK, so depending on your point of view, it’s either blindingly obvious that the founders of this great country did not think that America was founded on Judaeo-Christian values or else it’s blindingly obvious that none of the facts provided above have anything whatsoever to do with the issue and can be safely ignored (“Nothing to see here, folks, move along”). Fine. For those in the latter camp, however, how about we explore exactly what these supposed “Judaeo-Christian values” actually are and see if they do, in fact, form the foundation of our laws.

First up, of course, is the Ten Commandments, which is seen by many American Christians to be the foundation of U.S. law, to the extent that some would erect statues of the 10 Commandments right in the lobby of courthouses, as mentioned earlier. There are various versions, but here’s the most common list:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. [Hmmmm… I don’t see that enshrined anywhere in the Constitution or other laws of the United States. In fact, as mentioned above, the First Amendment of the Constitution specifically says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” You’d think that if America were indeed founded on Judaeo-Christian values the first and arguably most important commandment would be called out somewhere, right? Interesting…]
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. [Hmmmm… Again, I don’t see anything about this mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or other laws of the United States. And it’s kinda ironic that somebody would fight to erect a large graven image of the 10 Commandments in front of a court of law, doncha think?]
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. [Nope, still not seeing it. One could argue, by the way, that putting “In God We Trust” on our money is a direct violation of this commandment. There’s a reason why observant Jews write “G-D” instead of “God”. Ah, well… moving on!]
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. [Ah, yes — this must be why we have all those laws prohibiting football games and NASCAR races on Sundays. Oh wait, never mind. As an aside, did anybody else find it hilarious when, after 9/11, everybody started singing “God Bless America” at sporting events held on Sundays? Just me, huh? OK, fine.]
5. Honour thy father and thy mother. [You know, the Old Testament was really explicit about this one. In fact, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 specifically states that if you have a disobedient child, you need to take them outside and have them stoned to death. Gotta love those old time family values! Regardless, I’m not aware of anything in the Constitution or other laws of the land dealing with this. ]
6. Thou shalt not kill. [Bingo! We have a winner! This one is definitely in the Constitution. Isn’t it? OK, so it actually isn’t. We do have the nifty Second Amendment right to bear arms, though, so I guess it’s OK to kill in some circumstances. But, what the heck — let’s give this one to them, since there are plenty of English common law statutes dating back hundreds of years that prohibit murder.]
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. [Um, yeah. Sorry, no laws against adultery. Which is good, I suppose, since most of the politicians would be in jail. Remember back in 2012 and the only Republican running for president that hadn’t had more than one wife was the Mormon? Good times, good times.]
8. Thou shalt not steal. [Again, not in the Constitution, but plenty of examples from English common law. So we’ll give it to the Christians. That’s what, 2 out of 8 so far? Hmmmm… In other news, it’s a darn good thing that “steal” doesn’t include manipulating the tax code to avoid paying ones fair share of taxes to contribute to the common good, right? I mean, am I right, or am I right?]
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[Not really sure about this one, to be honest. Nothing in the Constitution (again), but plenty of laws regarding perjury in a court of law. That probably counts, so that makes 3 of 9 so far. w00t!]
10. Thou shalt not covet (thy neighbor’s house, wife, servants, animals, or anything else).[OK, I’m going to go out on a limb here and call this commandment positively un-American on its face. I mean coveting your neighbor’s, well, everything, is what capitalism is all about and is what makes this country so great in the first place, capische? Well, maybe not quite, but there still ain’t any laws against it, and that’s a fact!]

OK, so the final tally from the Ten Commandments is a pretty poor showing of only 3 out of 10. Maybe. Not looking so good for this myth so far, but let’s see what a selection of values described in the New Testament can tell us:

1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [Nope, just a restatement of the first of the 10 Commandments. Nothing to do with the U.S. And remember, according to the Biblical account, Jesus said this was the most important commandment of all, so it seems odd not to have it actually enshrined anywhere in our laws.]
2. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [Nice enough sentiment (and in no way original to Christ’s teachings), but not really enshrined anywhere or officially part of U.S. values.]
3. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world [Interesting how so many conservative Christians think we need laws to prevent gay marriage and abortions due to “Bible principles” and yet rail against government programs that “force people” (via taxes) to care for the poor, the widowed, the orphans, etc. Suddenly, it’s a bad thing for the government to “force” anybody to follow Biblical principles (when it’s a principle they don’t actually want to follow themselves, of course). I’m just saying…]
4. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. [Well, seeing as how the United States spends more on its military than, what, the next top ten countries combined, I’m going to give this one a big fat “NOPE!” There’s also that pesky “right to bear arms” enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution to consider. And as for giving people more than what they ask for if they sue you, well, that alone would put more than half the lawyers in this country out of business, wouldn’t it?]
5. Judge not, that ye be not judged. [Well, there goes our entire legal system down the drain…]

And so on and so forth. Yes, one could try to abstract the “Judaeo-Christian values” into some sort of core beliefs like “treat individuals with respect” or something, but that’s just a modern gloss on what the scriptures that form the basis of Judaeo-Christian values actually state.

And please, don’t even get me started on all the other Biblical laws that most modern-day Christians wholly write off as not applicable. I mean, it’s vitally important that gay people not be allowed to marry since the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but divorce? Eating shrimp? Owning slaves (OK, sorry, that one actually was in the Constitution to start with until the 14th Amendment came along…)

Analogies Are Not Arguments

Life is like a birdbath. It's made of concrete, filled with water, and uh...birds like to splash in it. Boy, that was dumb. Life isn't anything like a bird bath…

I have noticed a recent trend here on Quora (although it has probably been going on since time immemorial) whereby theists try to prove the existence of God (or, at the very least, justify why it’s rational to believe in God) through the awesome power of analogy. Some examples of this are the following:

• "You can't see the air, but you know its around. Same goes for God."
• "You can't see electricity but you know it's around. Same goes for God."

The thing is, though, is that these are not actually arguments and are instead just analogies. Analogies are wonderful things in that they make it easier to explain and understand complex subjects. But analogies don’t actually prove anything or provide evidence of anything and are really only useful if both of the following are true:

1. The underlying concept the analogy is seeking to explain is actually a true concept to begin with.
2. The analogy is actually a good one, meaning that the comparison it makes is actually relevant (see the Garfield comic shown above for an example of a bad analogy).

The various “God” analogies described above fail for both of these reasons. First of all, they assume that God exists instead of offering any evidence to that effect and then expect the analogy to somehow convince people to accept that assumption. If you can’t first demonstrate that God exists in the first place, using an analogy to explain why His existence can’t be detected doesn’t really get you very far.

Second of all, of course, they are simply bad analogies. For example, let’s look at the “argument” that “you can’t see the air but you know it’s around” (presumably meant to prove that the same is true of God and the fact that we can’t see Him doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist). Let’s see how well our knowledge of air stacks up against theists’ supposed knowledge of God:

• We primarily know about air based on the writings of people who lived thousands of years ago, just like theists primarily know about God based on the writings of people who lived thousands of years ago. Oh, wait — that’s not true.
• We mostly know that air exists because people claimed to have actually seen it thousands of years ago, even though it’s completely invisible today, just like people claimed to see and talk with God thousands of years ago even though nobody sees him today. Oh, wait — that’s not true.
• We have hundreds of different, often conflicting, descriptions today of what air actually is and how it acts, just like theists throughout the world and throughout history have hundreds (if not thousands) of different, often conflicting, descriptions of what God actually is and how He acts. Oh, wait — that’s not true.
• We are completely unable to detect air via any scientific instruments whatsoever and therefore have to accept its existence purely on faith, just like theists are completely unable to detect God via any scientific instruments and therefore have to accept His existence purely on faith. Oh, wait — that’s not true.
• Although we can occasionally detect the effect air has on the rest of the world, we can’t do so in any sort of consistent manner since “air moves in mysterious ways.” So, sometimes when we blow into a balloon it inflates, but other times it doesn’t. And sometimes when we inhale the air fills our lungs, but other times it just refuses to enter. This is just like how theists are unable to consistently detect the effect God has on the rest of the world since “God moves in mysterious ways.” So, sometimes He heals people who pray for healing, but other times He doesn’t. It’s exactly the same. Oh, wait — that’s not true.

So, yeah. Not a particularly good analogy, sorry, and definitely not any sort of argument (valid, sound or otherwise).

Why “I Don’t Believe God Exists” Really Is the Same as “I Believe God Doesn’t Exist”

I have noticed a very odd phenomena while observing theists interacting with atheists. To wit, atheists tend to say they don’t believe that God exists, whereas theists are constantly trying to get them to admit that they actually do believe that God doesn’t exist.

Sure, there are some subtle differences between the two statements. It is certainly possible to have no opinion whatsoever on a subject and, in that case, it would only be accurate to say you don’t believe anything about that subject. After all, you can’t affirmatively believe something is false if you haven’t ever considered it in the first place. For example, you might say that a newborn baby does not believe in God because that baby can’t even grasp the concept, and it would be incorrect to sat that a newborn baby believes that God doesn’t exist.

Similarly, it is possible that there is so little information available to actually form a belief in something — no claims of evidence for or against — that it’s really only possible to say you don’t believe it and not that you actually believe it is false. For example, most people would probably say they don’t actually have a belief that there is a technologically advanced alien civilization on a planet orbiting the star Antares, but wouldn’t go so far to say that they believe there isn’t such a civilization there. There’s simply no evidence one way or another, so the default position is to lack belief without affirmatively disbelieving.

But what about when atheists talk about their lack of belief in God? Is it really any different from having a belief that God doesn’t exist? I would argue that the two statements are functionally equivalent since (a) atheists who talk about such things certainly have an opinion on the subject (or else they wouldn’t be talking about such things) and (b) there are plenty of arguments and claims of evidence used to support a belief in God as well as plenty of counter-arguments and counter-evidence to support an active disbelief in God. So, when an atheist claims that he or she does not believe in God, it is usually because they are aware of the claims for God’s existence and they have actively rejected those claims as lacking in evidence and logical soundness.

So, why do so many atheists hate to admit they believe God doesn’t exist? And why do so many theists desperately try to get them to say that they do? Well, as far as I can tell, it all comes down to a mistaken notion of the burden of proof. As one atheist I had a discussion with recently put it:

[Stating a belief that God does not exist] is a description of a strong or militant atheist, because you believe there are no gods. It is a brave statement. A belief in the existence or nonexistence of something logically requires proof or evidence, otherwise it is subject to contradiction. I am a plain vanilla atheist, one who just does not believe that gods exist. The lack of belief in anything does not require proof or evidence and is not subject to contradiction. [Emphasis added]

So, apparently, some atheists believe that stating they believe God does not exist somehow shifts the burden of proof onto them to somehow justify their affirmative belief in the non-existence of God. And, apparently, this is exactly what theists have in mind when they insist that atheists don’t just lack a belief in God but actually believe God doesn’t exist.

Except, this is not how the burden of proof actually works.

Yes, it is true that the burden of proof lies upon the person making a claim, but it’s crucially important to understand when somebody is actually making a claim in the first place.

For example, if a theist states that she believes that God exists and an atheist responds that he does not believe that God exists (or, if you prefer, that he believes that God does not exist), neither party has any burden of proof whatsoever since neither one has actually made a claim. Stating a belief is not the same as making a claim, and a statement of belief does not require justification (except, perhaps, to validate that you do, in fact, believe what you say you believe and aren’t just lying).

Here’s the thing, though. Many theists don’t just state that they “believe” that God exists. Instead, they claim that God does exist. And, not only that, they have all sorts of “proof” (including logical arguments) to support this claim that God exists. And, since they are actually making a claim, they have the burden of proof to actually provide the evidence and arguments in support of that claim and defend that evidence and arguments against any and all evidence and arguments to the contrary.

Most atheists, on the other hand, don’t ever claim that God does not exist. They claim that they don’t believe God exists, or that they believe that God doesn’t exist, but once again a statement of belief — even an affirmative statement of belief (“I believe God does not exist”) — is not a claim that carries with it any burden of proof whatsoever.

Even when atheists get into debates with theists, atheists rarely assert that “God does not exist.” At most, the atheist will provide evidence and arguments to rebut the claim by theists that God does exist and then conclude that the complete lack of good evidence and sound arguments to support a belief in God should rationally lead to a lack of belief in God.

So the whole idea of atheists who claim that God does not exist is basically a straw man cooked up by theists. But it’s a good topic for discussion, since many theists think that they can shift the burden of proof onto atheists simply by getting them to admit that they affirmatively believe there is no God instead of just that they lack a belief in God. As discussed above, however, it doesn’t matter if you assert a belief or a lack of belief, since neither statement carries with it any burden of proof whatsoever.

---

Having said all that, let me acknowledge that some atheists do, in fact, make the actual claim that God (at least the God described in the holy books of any world religion and actually worshiped by anybody) does not exist. And yes, any atheist making this claim would absolutely have the burden of proof to back up his claim. Fortunately, for these atheists, the burden of proof is actually quite easy to meet, since all one needs to do is show that (a) all logical arguments used to prove the existence of God are unsound and (b) that evidence that should be there if such a God existed is, in fact, not there. See, for example, the following:

Absence of Evidence IS Evidence of Absence

Keep in mind this only applies to the God described in the holy books of any world religion and actually worshiped by anybody. Few, if any, atheists will ever claim that no possible concept of God exists, since there are concepts of God out there that are so amorphous as to be wholly incapable of being proved or disproved. You know, the omniscient, omnipotent, intangible “spirit” God who exists wholly outside of time and space and who created the universe and then does not interact with it in any way. Sure, that sort of God could exist, but who really cares if it does or doesn’t, since it doesn’t answer prayers, doesn’t perform miracles, doesn’t proscribe moral laws, doesn’t reward good deeds, doesn’t punish bad deeds, doesn’t provide for an afterlife or a path to salvation, etc., and really only exists conceptually as a means of plugging current gaps in human knowledge (e.g., “where did the universe come from?”).

Trying to Make Sense of Noah’s Ark

At the time the story of Noah’s Ark was first written thousands of years ago, it actually made some sort of sense to talk about building a boat large enough to carry representative samples of each of the various kinds of animal on earth. After all, the people who wrote the story didn’t actually know about the existence of most of the different species existing on earth. Sure, they knew about camels, horses, goats, cows, sheep, wolves, cats, bears, lions, elephants, etc., but they had no idea whatsoever about, say, kangaroos and koalas, sloths, penguins, opossums, and all the rest of the animals that lived beyond their small universe of experience. So if you’re only talking about hundreds of different species instead of thousands (or millions), then it makes perfect sense to think about somebody building an ark to hold them all.

OK, so maybe not perfect sense, since you’d still have to deal with feeding them all, disposing of all their waste, and constructing such a monstrous and unseaworthy vessel in the first place using bronze age technology, but you get the point. Those are all minor issue compared to the big one of fitting millions of animals.

That was then, though. Nowadays, we are fully aware of the vast number of different animals that exist today across the globe and not even the most die-hard, blinded by faith, Young Earth Creationist would ever consider denying the existence of these animals. Nobody goes around claiming that kangaroos are a hoax perpetuated by scientists the way that they might claim that evolution is a hoax. After all, we can all go to zoos and actually see many of the animals that were completely unknown to the authors of the Noah story. So, given the fact that there truly are just way too many different species of animals that could ever possibly fit onto a single ark, even the most die-hard, blinded by faith, Young Earth Creationists have to admit that it’s just a made up story, right?

Yeah, right. And Flat-Earthers are all going to finally admit the Earth is round because NASA has provided proof that it has satellites and space stations orbiting the planet. Not gonna happen, sorry.

So, how do Biblical literalists still make sense of the story of Noah’s Ark given what we now know about the animal kingdom? Well, first of all, they claim that there were certain types of animals that Noah didn’t need to bring on board. Sea creatures, for example, could all survive in the water and many species of insects could have probably survived by hanging out on mats of floating vegetation or something similar. Forget the fact that the sudden influx of fresh water and the co-mingling of fresh and salt water would have killed off many marine creatures that have evolved to only live in fresh or salt-water environments. It all sort of makes sense, right?

Second of all, Noah only brought juvenile members of each species onto the ark. Little baby animals (even little baby dinosaurs) take up a lot less room and don’t eat nearly as much as full-grown adult animals, right? I mean, ignore the fact that this isn’t actually mentioned in the Biblical account anywhere, since it could have happened, right? Even if it did happen that way, though, we’re still talking about way too many animals to ever fit into an ark. Which brings us to…

Third, and most important of all, instead of bringing two (or, in some cases, seven) of each species of animal onto the ark, Noah brought two (or, in some cases, seven) of each “kind” of animal. Now, “kind” is not a scientific term, but Young Earth Creationists use a sort of “common sense” approach to determining what is and is not a “kind.” For example, instead of bringing representative samples of dogs, coyotes, jackals, dingos, hyenas, etc., on the ark, Noah would have just brought a pair of some “dog-like” creature (perhaps similar to a wolf). Similarly, instead of bringing lions, tigers, jaguars, ocelots, lynxes, etc., Noah just brought a pair of “cats.”

So, yeah — perfectly sensible, right?

Except… no. The problem with this explanation is that it requires the speciation of thousands and thousands of different “kinds” to occur over the last 4000 years at a speed which would make an evolutionary biologist blush in embarrassment and without anybody actually noticing it happening (Young earth Creationists love to attack things like evolution by claiming it has never been observed, but then they are perfectly willing to accept this).

Just to out this into perspective, after the ark landed at Mt. Ararat, the descendants of this breeding pair of “felines” would have had to rapidly speciate to produce all the different types of cats we see today. Yes, one breeding pair of “cat” was responsible for all the Lions, Tigers, Jaguars, Panthers, Leopards, Ocelots, Lynxes (Canadian, Iberian and Eurasian), House Cats (all the different breeds), Snow Leopards, African Golden Cats, Asian Golden Cats, Bobcats, Caracals, Chinese Desert Cats, Clouded Leopards, Fishing Cats, Servals, African Wild Cats, Andean Mountain Cats, Black-footed Cats, Bornean Bay Cats, European Wild Cats, Flat-headed Cats, Geoffroy’s Cats, Iriomote Cats, Jaguarundi, Jungle Cats, Kodkods, Leopard Cats (different from leopards, mind you), Marbled Cats, Margays, Oncillas, Pallas Cats, Pampas Cat, Pumas (a.k.a Mountain Lions or Cougars), Rusty Spotted Cats and Sand Cats. And all this happened in the last few thousand years or so without anybody seeing it happen.

And that’s just cats, mind you. Repeat the same process with horses (zebras, asses, etc.), dogs (wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc.) and every other “kind” of creature for which we now have many different existing species. All of this happening far more rapidly than has ever been observed in nature, and all without a single person in history ever noticing all these new species miraculously appearing overnight (“Hey — that jaguar just gave birth to an ocelot!”).

Oh, and since dinosaurs must have lived at the same time as humans, Noah also had to bring one representative pair of “dinosaurs” on the ark as well, but they were very small. And they died off right after the ark landed. Or else they lived long enough for their offspring to cover the earth with their fossils and then suddenly died off, again without anybody actually seeing it happen even though it would have been happening right in front of us during all of recorded history.

And, of course, not only would this rapid speciation have to occur without anybody ever taking note of it, but you would also need to explain how all the animals managed to travel to all the distant parts of the word where they eventually ended up. How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it to Australia? How did the Sloths make it to South America? How did the penguins make it to Antarctica?

The only answer to all of these questions that Biblical literalists can provide is, of course, “God did it.” How could Noah build an ark big enough to carry all the necessary animals with only Bronze Age technology? God showed him how to do it. How could such a monstrosity be seaworthy? God performed a miracle and kept it afloat. How could all the different “kinds” of animals rapidly speciate and distribute themselves globally? God made it happen. Etc., etc., etc. If you want to believe this, go for it. God is a god of miracles, after all, and with God nothing is impossible (so they say). But, please, I wish people would stop trying to come up with rational-sounding and pseudo-scientific explanations for how it was all possible or how the story could possibly make any sort of sense. Just admit it was impossible and say that God can do impossible things, end of story. Stop trying to prove that your illogical and irrational beliefs are based in science and just own your beliefs for what they are.