We are taking a look at an atheist’s blog post entitled,

The Five Best Reasons Not to Believe in God

In my previous post I dealt with his argument for “NO EVIDENCE“.

Although the blogger cites five reasons not to believe in God, only three of them could qualify as arguments against God’s existence, this being the last one. The rest of his reasons don’t address existence at all. In fact, in his next argument “suffering“, he admits it is not relevant to believing that God exists. But I will address all his concerns.

As I tackle his arguments, you can click on the links below and see if he has made a more compelling argument. As always, I am advocating for the God of the bible, not the multitude of other gods for which I agree, there is no evidence for. Let’s get started.

His Introduction

  1. There is No Evidence for God
  2. Belief in God is Illogical
  3. Suffering Negates His Existence
  4. We Don’t Need God
  5. Life is Better Without God

2. Belief in God is Illogical

What are his reasons?

  1. Because there is no evidence, people argue it must be God because nothing else makes sense
  2. He cannot knock down every argument here
  3. Trying to reason God into existence is a failed project
  4. He rejects God being the best explanation of God being the cause of the universe, and the reason for the extreme fine tuning for intelligent life it exhibits
  5. Even if he did accept the above premises, “they do not constitute a conclusive, logical position”
  6. The existence of God has not been proven by anyone, ever

This is the sum of the writers argument. I am somewhat confused, as he demands conclusive logical evidence to convince him, but he doesn’t present any logical reasoning for why he isn’t convinced. Let’s break down his statements.


  1. This is the same argument from ignorance fallacy he presented in his first claim about there being no evidence for God. This statement is by definition illogical.
  2. Although he may not be able to answer all the arguments reasoning for belief in God, and I am happy to read he knows there are to many for him to address, he could have at least addressed a couple.
  3. This is a meaningless statement without clarification or support.
  4. – 5. He concedes that the cosmological constants and origin of the universe arguments are used for support of God’s existence, but he rejects them. Why? he doesn’t say, other than state the arguments don’t constitute a conclusive, logical position. I am sorry, but I don’t think this writer really knows what would constitute a logical position because he has not presented one.

I would be very interested in what his position is on the origin of the universe, or the origin of life on earth, or even the cosmological constants fine tuning. I suspect he has not addressed them because the only alternative arguments to God, have less evidence, even no evidence to support them.

It is illogical to oppose one set of arguments that are not conclusive, and accept another set of arguments that are less conclusive.

6. This statement is a repeat of his closing statement of his first claim, and is addressed in my last post “There is No Evidence for God“. 

The only statement related to logic is the one he states belief is illogical. What is a logical argument you may ask?

  • Premise 1: Anything that begins to exists has a cause
  • Premise 2: The universe began to exist
  • Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause

It follows that if the universe has a cause, that cause must be uncaused, and outside everything that is caused and immensely powerful.

  • Premise 1: If the universe had a cause, and is finely tuned for intelligent life
  • Premise 2: And natural processes cannot cause anything if they do not exist
  • Premise 3: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, intelligent and immensely powerful
  • Conclusion; Therefore an uncaused, immensely powerful intelligence exists

One can reject the argument but it is framed logically. The conclusion follows from the premises. The question or argument is, are the premises true? What is the evidence that supports the premises and therefore the conclusion?

What is an illogical argument

  • Premise 1: There is no evidence God exists
  • Premise 2: It is illogical to believe God exists
  • Premise 3: I reject the evidence God exists
  • Premise 4: No one has proven God exists
  • Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist

Is this compelling, logical or conclusive?

The writer is demanding a standard that is not attainable for most science disciplines. His standard of “proof” would exclude conclusions from all the historical sciences, as well as all the origins sciences, string theory and quantum mechanics.

He must not also not believe in the existence of black holes, dark energy, dark matter, evolution, most historical figures or an endless string of other scientific conclusions.

If you enjoy or find this content interesting, please comment below, hit the “LIKE”button, and the “SUBSCRIBE” button so you will be notified of new posts.

Thank you,

Robert J.