What Are The Best Arguments for the Non-Existence of God?

In a recent interview with Christian philosopher and apologist Douglas Groothius, Lee Strobel asks, “What’s the strongest argument in the arsenal of atheists these days? And why does it fall short?” Groothius answers:

That’s a big question. Different atheists will use different arguments, but they often confront Christians with two things: (1) Darwinism has refuted the idea of Designer and so defeats Christianity (and every other form of theism). They claim that undirected, purely material causes and entities can explain all of biology. (2) The existence of the amount of evil in the world destroys the idea that there is a God who is all-good and all-powerful. No such God would allow this to happen. This is called the problem of evil.

Groothius is correct when he points out that “Different atheists will use different arguments.” In my opinion, the strongest arguments for atheism are evidential arguments for naturalism and against theism, based on facts about:

I’m not going to fault Groothius for saying nothing about the argument from physical minds, but I am surprised he neglected to mention reasonable nonbelief.

Related Post:

Jerry Coyne Blocking: Episode II
Rape them Atheists!
Index: The Evidential Argument from Physical Minds (APM)
Adam Lee: The Argument from Locality
About Jeffery Jay Lowder

Jeffery Jay Lowder is President Emeritus of Internet Infidels, Inc., which he co-founded in 1995. He is also co-editor of the book, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943 The Uncredible Hallq

    If we're talking about an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving God, I think the best argument is this: http://www.mediafire.com/?8cbek7kbt7y15cb

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779 Steven Carr

    Are there arny arguments for the non-existence of Zeus that Groothuis thinks are respectable?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05868095335395368227 vjack

    No arguments are necessary on the part of the atheist. All we have to do is point out that the theist has yet to meet their burden of proof.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401 Jeffery Jay Lowder

    vjack — Since the word "atheism" is used differently by different people who self-identify as atheists, we need to define our terms. If by "atheism" you mean merely the lack of belief in God, then I agree with you. As Keith Parsons argued persuasively in his book God and the Burden of Proof, the lack of belief requires no justification unless there is some reason why we should hold that belief.

    If, on the other hand, by "atheism" you mean the belief that God does not exist — and notice the title of my post was about the non-existence of God — then I disagree. I think anyone making a negative existential claim also has a burden of proof.