HUSAM AHMED SHAFEEQ
A claim requires evidence—that goes without saying. The real question is: what constitutes a claim in a debate, and who bears the burden of proof?
If you were to talk with an atheist and ask them to prove the non-existence of God, which is the core principle of their worldview, they would most likely propose a counter-demand to disprove any fictional proposition—such as the existence of unicorns. What they imply is that the responsibility lies with theists to provide evidence for God rather than demanding from atheists to prove the contrary.
The manifest folly in equating a unicorn (or other imaginary things that have no explanatory observations) with God, whose very existence is defined as the ultimate cause of the universe, is quite evident. However, there is a lot more to be debunked in this oft-repeated fallacious atheistic argument.
Shifting the burden
In their attempt to evade the philosophical task of backing their claim with evidence, many prominent atheists have formulated similar analogies, the most famous of which came from the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, who writes:
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.”[1]
Just as it is irrational to expect others to disprove the existence of such a celestial teapot, Russell goes on to argue, the onus of proof in the debate of God’s existence lies with those who claim such a being exists and not with those who question it.
This contends that atheism should be accepted as the default conclusion, which should not be questioned until evidence for the alternative is presented.
Notwithstanding how passionately atheists desire this to be true, the above contention merely serves as an example of fallacious reasoning. The argument rests on premises that are not only erroneous but – according to the principles of logic – also ridiculous, which only work to confuse laypeople, taking advantage of their lack of understanding.
False equivalence
The rhetoric of equating belief in God with belief in mythical existences well employs the fallacy of false equivalence, which tends to compare two entirely different things based on flawed reasoning.
Unlike unicorns or cosmic teapots, which have no observational evidence, God is defined as the ultimate cause of the universe. The intricacies of nature point towards a beginning that can only be explained by attributing it to an intelligent Creator. This is similar to inferring the existence of a painter by observing a painting. No amount of cognitive gymnastics to equate this with folkloric existences would prove otherwise.
As the Creator of the universe who consciously formulated the laws of nature, the existence of God can be determined based on whether our universe indicates a planned creation or an accidental origin. This can be verified by analysing the values of universal constants and other factors that govern natural phenomena.
In other words, the question of God’s existence can be investigated using scientific knowledge and logical reasoning. Those who challenge the concept should also employ these methods to disprove His existence rather than dismissing the issue by equating it with fictional beings.
Denial as a claim
It has become the stock argument of atheists, whenever asked for evidence, to say that the non-existence of something cannot be proved. They often evade the burden of substantiation by appealing to the negative format in the statement, ‘God does not exist’.
However, they fail to recognise that a negative expression in any claim does not grant it the benefit of acceptance without evidence. For instance, if I were to say that atheists do not possess intelligence, I should not expect them to agree with me just because the sentence entails a negative format.
Moreover, it is also imperative to note that any negative claim can be rewritten into an equivalent positive claim. For instance, the above proposition about the intellect of atheists can be rephrased as ‘atheists lack intelligence’, turning it into an affirmative statement.
To resolve this issue, some atheists present a more nuanced version of the argument, saying that while it may be possible to prove the non-existence of something in a specific context, a universal negative claim would still be unprovable. For example, while it can be proved that a teapot is not present on a particular table, it would be impossible to disprove the existence of such a teapot in the entire universe. As religions postulate the existence of God as a universal truth, they argue that the concept can be rejected without evidence.
Again, this argument follows an erroneous line of reasoning. The truth is, a universal negative claim may still constitute a claim that requires evidence. For instance, the statement that extra-terrestrial life does not exist denies the presence of life beyond Earth in the expanse of the entire universe. Yet, the proposition amounts to a positive claim that warrants scrutiny and can only be accepted if supporting evidence is presented.
Numerous similar examples can be found in this regard, ranging from our everyday conversations to complex scientific discussions. For instance, telling someone that they will never overcome a certain bad habit or negating the existence of Hawking Radiation all fall into this category. The point is that a negative claim does not imply that it should be accepted at face value, atheism being no exception.
A claim of gargantuan enormity
Atheists often simplify the nature of their claim, describing it merely as a denial. However, the true essence of their claim can be characterised as anything but simple.
Given that God is defined as the Creator of the universe, the ‘simple’ atheistic statement ‘there is no God’ incorporates gigantic assertions regarding the origin of the universe as well as phenomena within it. As such, the claim can be broken down into countless affirmative propositions, such as:
- The universe came into existence on its own.
- The causative factors of the physical universe must themselves be physical. (This is analogous to saying that a person gave birth to themselves)
- The astounding precision in the values of universal constants and the remarkably accurate ratios between these values can be ascribed to randomness.
- The exceptionally organised distribution of matter in the universe is explainable through chance.
- The stunning complexity of the biological world and the staggering amount of information crucial for the functionality of organisms are all attributable to coincidence.
In short, atheism presupposes these and innumerable other claims of the same magnitude, all of which are intrinsically associated with the assertion that God does not exist. Needless to say, these propositions bear gargantuan implications. Accepting them without question would not be any better than believing in fairies or unicorns.
END NOTES
[1] The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, v. 11
1 Comment
ANINDYA MOITRA · August 3, 2024 at 3:26 pm
Excellent arguments provided for countering the arguments of atheists and for giving logical arguments in support of theism.