Just a quick one today.
I saw this argument several times in the last few days, and I have also seen it many more times presented in debate groups by simple minded and ignorant believers over the last couple of years, so maybe it’s time to write about it? To be honest, this is the easiest “argument” to refute of them all.
When you say that you see the wondrous “works of god” all around you, and they surely prove “His existence”, what you are really proving is not what you think:
- You start with the (implicit) assumption that god, your particular religion’s god, created all things.
- You then take the things that you assume god created, and declare that they prove god created them.
I’m sorry, but if you can’t see the problem with this logic, you are a prize idiot.
This is simply an example of begging the question, a type of circular reasoning. The premises of your argument assumes the conclusion. In this case, by implicitly and indirectly (it’s often not stated) starting with the assumption that god created all things, and then holding up those things as proof of god, all that you actually prove is that you made the assumption.