Note: Because this is a particularly long article, I have decided to place links throughout for ease of access to various segments, as well as circling back and forth. I have color coded links, using the usual blue color to indicate that the link takes you off the page, but the brown color to indicate that the link takes you elsewhere in the article.
In 2014, The Atheist Voice posted a video entitled "20 SHORT Arguments Against God's Existence". This video, quite frankly, is awesome. Not because it actually makes decent arguments against God's existence, as the title erroneously claims, but because it serves as a perfect illustration of why one should never be an atheist. Aside from the fact the atheist in the video (Hemant Mehta, a.k.a. The Friendly Atheist) had so few arguments that he had to split a few in order to make 20 arguments, some of the arguments he did make are so daft, one could be forgiven for assuming the entire video is a comedy sketch. Nevertheless, Mehta uses several arguments that are common among atheists, and so while the best response to the video might simply be "watch it and tell me, with a straight face, that you think it made a compelling case", I thought I'd write a short response to each of the arguments individually.
18. You sound crazy
There's no evidence
This common claim is every atheist's escape plan. A basic response would be "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". If it was true that there was no evidence for God's existence, that wouldn't necessarily mean He doesn't exist, it would just mean we can't prove it.
But this response is insufficient, because it grants a faulty premise. In reality, every atheist should add three words to the end of that sentence: "There's no evidence that I accept." Of course there's evidence for God! The very existence of apologists should demonstrate this. It is literally the job of an apologist to present evidence for God's existence, and the evidence we present has converted many an atheist to Christianity.
The reality is, there is evidence for God, it's just that atheists do not accept this. Some of them even flat out admit this. Bart Ehrman, for example, admits that even if a miracle happened, he wouldn't accept evidence that shows it happened. More recently, Richard Dawkins admitted that while he gives lip service to changing your mind to suit the evidence, nothing would convince him. Atheism has never been, and will never be, a matter of evidence. Rather, it is about how evidence is filtered.
God doesn't stop evil, and even commits it
This is actually two flawed arguments in one: The "Problem of evil" and the "evil God" arguments. The former is a very old argument, and so it isn't surprising that it has been repeatedly answered in many ways over the years. At this point, while it does make sense for a complete philosophical novice to present the problem of evil as a question, there is no excuse for an honest and educated atheist to present it as an argument, simply because a 5 second Google search will spit out several solid answers to the question.
The simplest answer to the so-called "Problem" is sin. Sin is the evil we all think, say, and do. The ultimate penalty for sin is death, but the entire world is cursed because of sin. Effectively, because human beings are contrary to God, the world in which we live naturally displays the consequences for that rebellion. However, in His love for us, He does not seek to maintain this enmity. Rather, while we are on the earth, we have a "grace period", during which we can choose to repent of the evil we commit, or bear the ultimate consequence for it. Basically, God doesn't destroy evil yet because doing so would require Him to destroy the objects of His love. Hemant Mehta is, himself, evil, and so he can be grateful God has not stopped evil yet.
The evil God argument is equally fallacious. First, it is ironically contradictory to the aforementioned "Problem" of evil, as most accusations that God is evil are complaints about how He responds to evil (as we'll actually see later on). It creates a "damned if God does, damned if God doesn't" kind of scenario, complaining that God doesn't stop evil, then complaining when He does.
But more than that, there is a major fallacy in attempting to damn God at all. See, if God exists, He's in charge. Man can't judge God. Where would they get the authority to do so? Literally everything belongs to God, so it makes as much sense to accuse Him of being evil as it does to accuse someone of trespassing in their own home, or stealing their own property.
This even creates further problems for atheists, as without God, there is no foundation for objective morality. Thus, the very premise that evil exists proves there must be a God. Even if atheists could provide an alternative moral source, they must first assume Christianity is false before using it to judge Christian morality, meaning this argument is entirely circular. It is no more logical to say "God is evil because He did X" than it is to say "atheism is false because the Bible says blasphemy is sin".
All of the above is made even more ridiculous by the fact that whether God exists and whether atheists agree with His morality are two totally separate questions. The atheist obviously grants that evil does exist, meaning they acknowledge the existence of evil doers. So how would God being evil, in their eyes, mean He doesn't exist? It's an entirely different question!
The flood wasn't loving
As you can see, Hemant Mehta has already made the mistake of splitting one argument into two, just to fill space. The flood is an example of an "evil God" objection, meaning this argument is the same argument we just refuted, meaning it has the same answers. It's circular, it's self-refuting, it doesn't even comment on whether God exists (and indeed, if the flood was real, He must), it's just a daft argument.
The opening lines of the Bible are factually wrong
Aside from being blatantly circular (i.e. Mehta assumes his atheistic conclusions in his case for atheism), I think Christopher Hitchens gives a good answer to this: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Mehta never backed up his claim that the opening lines of the Bible are factually wrong, and thus we can either take him to task on it, or, since I'm not exactly in close contact with him, we can just ignore this circular argument.
Prayer doesn't heal amputees
This is possibly the best argument in the video. Nevertheless, it is highly flawed. The first problem? Once again, it does not address God's existence, but rather, His apparent effectiveness. Whether or not God answers prayer is irrelevant to whether or not He exists. If I call you and you don't answer, that doesn't mean you don't exist.
As a general rule, any atheist argument against prayer likely misunderstands it. Atheists tend to assume that prayer is akin to wishing upon a genie. You rub the lamp, you make the wish, you instantly get what you demanded. Not so. Prayer is an act of communication with God that may affect how He behaves. Yet, not even Jesus got everything He prayed for. He prayed, for example, that God might find an alternative way to forgive sin than the cross, and yet God still had Jesus go to the cross. The key in prayer is God's will (not to mention the will of the one praying to submit to it). God reserves the right to say "wait" or "no", and so using the times when He does so as an argument against Him is absurd.
Another thing atheists often misunderstand is miracles. Specifically, their purpose. See, while it is entirely possible that God has healed an amputee or two at some point in history (atheists must assume He hasn't, but the most they can really say is they don't know any examples), the fact is He doesn't need to. Biblically speaking, miracles are rare, and are supposed to be, because they are designed to verify new messages.
Think of it this way: Atheists, including Hemant Mehta (as we will see shortly) are extremely sceptical of any miracle, holding out hope for a natural explanation to even the most impressive ones. If God frequently healed amputees, atheists would not be impressed. Thus, it is far better to allow, for example, Nick Vujicic, who was born with no arms or legs, to continue glorifying Him without their limbs.
Thus, arguing that prayer does not often cause this one specific miracle is fallacious. Aside from the fact "God doesn't perform this very specific miracle upon command" is not a valid argument against His existence, it isn't even an argument against prayer or miracles as the Bible describes them.
Why is your God different from the ones you don't believe in?
First of all, Jesus.
Second, ironically, Mehta answers his own question, as his video is aimed exclusively at the God I believe in. These arguments don't even work against Him, of course, but most of them certainly don't work against other gods.
Third, consider this: Because I already believe in a God, I can logically dismiss all other gods simply because the law of non-contradiction exists. I don't know who Hemant Mehta's parents are, but he, presumably, does. Let's imagine a scenario in which I believe Mehta was actually born from a rock, Mithras style. How logical would it be for me to defend this claim by asking him "why are your parents different from the people you don't believe are your parents"? Obviously, not very logical at all. If you know who your parents are, you also know who they aren't.
Where you're born determines what you believe.
The first problem with this argument is that it commits the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy involves criticising a belief based on its origins, or perception thereof. If it was true that where you were born determines what you believe, that wouldn't have any effect on whether or not it is true.
Furthermore, it is not true that where you were born determines what you believe. Aside from the fact many nations are multicultural, even the ones that aren't have a few "radicals". What foolish atheist would walk up to a Christian in Pakistan and say "if you'd been born in Pakistan, you'd be a Muslim, so what makes you so confident in Christianity?" Seriously, I want you to picture that scenario. It's too comical to be expressed in words!
Furthermore, the video should not exist if Mehta truly believes that religious beliefs are determined by geography. Is the video designed to change where you were born? No, it's trying (and miserably failing) to present good reasons to change your beliefs. The very premise of the video refutes this argument!
Who created God, and how does your answer to that make any sense?
This question is extremely loaded. Let's first examine the inherent smugness of the addition "how does your answer to that make any sense"? With this statement, Mehta first assumes that any answer to the question must necessarily be nonsensical. If you answer a question, you shouldn't need to explain why your answer makes sense because such an answer should be self explanatory. In fact, while Mehta's questions and statements are themselves nonsensical, he obviously assumes they do make sense. The question "how does that make sense" should not be pre-asked, but rather, should follow a nonsensical answer. For example, Hemant Mehta, in the unlikely event you read this article, how does it make any sense for you to ask "who created God?"
And indeed, how does it? Because first of all, again you hit the problem of this question not addressing God's existence. Just as "does Hemant Mehta exist?" and "who are Hemant Mehta's parents?" are two different questions, so also are "does God exist" and "who created God?" two different questions. Isn't it amazing how we're now 8 arguments in, and exactly 0 of them have directly addressed whether or not God exists?
Furthermore, the answer to the question (which is loaded with an erroneous premise) actually ends up showing that, regardless of who God is, there must be something like God in order for us to exist. This leads us to what is commonly called the "cosmological argument", or to give it the name a high school student probably knows it by (as apparently, Mehta's philosophical knowledge is around that level), the "first cause" argument. Key word: first cause.
If you ask who created God, you first make the erroneous assumption that there was a time when there was no God. In reality, there was a God when there was no time. God doesn't need an origins story because there was never a time when He wasn't around. But if we set that fact to one side for a moment, asking who created Him merely makes Him a second cause. But then you ask what created the thing that created God, making Him the third cause. Then, you add another cause, and another, and another, creating an infinite regression. But you don't need to be good at math to see the flaw here. An infinite regression is impossible, because you cannot traverse an infinite. Therefore, there must be a finite number of causes, with a first cause, which is itself uncaused, that created everything else a finite amount of time ago. Otherwise, we would quite literally never exist. God proven? Not necessarily, but God is the only legitimate contender to be the first cause.
And again, atheists have no excuse for not knowing this. Aside from the fact, at least here in the UK, you learn this stuff in high school, if you have done enough research to be confident in publicly discussing the issue, you must have skimmed at least one resource dealing with this argument in great depth. So why doesn't Hemant Mehta know this? He's either too ignorant to be arguing for atheism, or he's being dishonest. And while I prefer to default to ignorant, Hemant Mehta's platform makes that a difficult position to sustain.
Paediatric cancer
This, again, falls under the "problem" of evil, but with a twist. Rather than dealing with moral evil, it addresses natural evil. The first fallacy? Appeal to emotion. Notice, Mehta doesn't just say "cancer" and leave it at that. He could, especially since he would still object to the existence of cancer if children couldn't get it, but he specifically singles out paediatric cancer.
Cancer is an undoubtedly tragic thing, and when it affects the youngest and most vulnerable individuals, it is positively heart breaking. However, undesirable does not equal untrue. Indeed, if it did, we could cure paediatric cancer just by collectively agreeing that we don't like it. If you want to make a rational argument, you must take your emotions out of the equation, even when that's hard.
But of course, Mehta's argument isn't "paediatric cancer is sad, therefore God doesn't exist", but rather, if God is all powerful and all loving, why doesn't God take care of it? First, once again, we don't have an argument against God's existence here. God can still exist and not cure paediatric cancer. But the question is, if He's all powerful and all loving, why wouldn't He want to use that power to fix this?
The simplistic answer (and I mean simplistic) is simply "sin". Before sin entered the world, cancer was impossible. But when sin entered the world, the world became broken. Everything, including mankind, became susceptible to death. And sadly, that involves medical tragedy. The world we observe today is not a world in which God does not exist, but in which He is partially (and, thankfully, temporarily) withdrawn.
One thing that's especially of note is that even when Christ returns, mankind will still experience death. Scripture describes a time when a man who dies at 100 years of age will be considered accursed by God. Now, if people will still die when Jesus is personally enthroned on Earth, why would anything we suffer while He's not physically here be evidence against His existence? In order to refute the God of the Bible, you must demonstrate that some observation we make is fundamentally incompatible with Him as He is described in Scripture. Yet, here, Mehta's argument boils down to "the world we observe is exactly how we should expect it to be if Genesis 3 is true, therefore the Bible isn't true".
Unconditional love shouldn't come with a list of conditions
And it doesn't. Mehta fails to distinguish between the love God pours out upon all humanity and the relationship enjoyed by those who respond positively to it. Scripture tells us that God shows His love for us in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. If we suppose Hemant Mehta never gets saved, and goes to Hell, that wouldn't be because God never loved Mehta, but because Mehta did not respond to the love God poured out upon Him. Christ died for Hemant Mehta, but only if Mehta comes to Him in faith will that love become effective.
We actually see this in human relationships. Sadly, a lot of those relationships are one sided. As God is our Heavenly Father, and sinners are His prodigal children, let us simply narrow it down to parent-child relationships. Many of these lack the love they ought to be based upon. A child, for example, may become estranged from his parents, even though they love him dearly. Tragically, I personally know a few examples of this. The parents love the children, but the children hate the parents. The result is, of course, broken relationships. If those relationships are not repaired, who is at fault? The parents, who unconditionally loved the children, or the children, who rejected that love?
Let's even add a layer. Suppose the estranged child commits a crime. A loving parent will want to save their child, but a just parent will nevertheless have to deliver them to justice. Love and justice are not mutually exclusive, but where the two clash, justice must prevail. God's love is shown in that He sought alternative justice through the cross, but His justice is shown in the eternal punishment of the impenitent. Those who accept the Gospel, by contrast, receive the rewards Jesus bought for them. Key word: Receive. God's love is poured out on humanity, but only those who accept it see its benefits.
As a final note, this argument actually contradicts another of Mehta's arguments. Later in the video, he complains that the 10 commandments aren't complete enough. In other words, not only does Mehta believe there should be conditions to receiving the benefits of God's love, but He also believes the specifics of those conditions aren't strict enough! So which is it, Hemant? Should God "love" us no matter how grotesque we become, even if we frequently and brutally rape our slaves, or should God dedicate multiple extra verses (extra because He does address rape and slavery) to addressing rape and slavery?
Every miracle gets debunked eventually
There are multiple problems here, the first being that, far from showing that every miracle eventually gets debunked, Mehta didn't give an example of any miracle getting debunked. God does not even lay claim to every miracle. The miracles the Bible attributes to God are fair game. If you want to claim they've been debunked, then bring your case. But what about the miracles of a charlatan? Or a crackhead? Or even the miracles of a well intentioned, yet misguided Christian? It simply isn't fair to compare the two, for the same reason it would be unfair to assume Hemant Mehta is a Christian because he was born in America (and would you look at that, we've come full circle).
But let's talk about the miracles the Bible attributes to God for a moment. Tell me, exactly how many of them have been debunked? Answer: 0. Setting aside the usual circular reasoning (i.e. "the Bible's miracles don't count because the Bible isn't true"), every attempt to disprove those miracles inevitably ends up being as weak as Mehta's whole video. The 10 plagues? Not debunked. The red sea crossing? Not debunked. The feeding of the 5,000? Not debunked. The resurrection? So powerful is the evidence for the resurrection that many atheists far more qualified than Hemant Mehta have set out to debunk it only to come back as Christians.
Furthermore, we have to take into account the average atheist's extremely low standard for what counts as "debunked". To an atheist, any alternative answer to a miracle, no matter how flawed, can be accepted as a refutation, simply because it is Naturalistic. Even when no naturalistic alternative can be found, the assumption is that it must exist, we just don't know what it is yet. But that leaves us with the problem that the atheist is just too sceptical. You could never prove a miracle to the atheist, even if it happened right in front of them. An atheist could even consistently accept that Jesus rose from the dead while simultaneously denying God's existence because they can just say "well, I don't know how He did it, but we'll debunk this miracle eventually". But if you're that sceptical, you're just not rational.
The 10 commandments left off rape and slavery
Aside from the fact this is effectively a repeat of argument 2, this is also cherry picking. Not just cherry picking, brazen cherry picking. While the 10 commandments do not specifically address rape and slavery, other Scriptures do. There are places in scripture which explicitly condemn rape (and even make it a capital offence, equating it to murder), and present slavery as an evil which, while it is temporarily tolerated, is nevertheless heavily regulated, and ideally to be abolished. If Hemant Mehta is willing to pretend that the 10 commandments are the only moral teachings in Scripture we ought to be concerned with, we really should question either his education or his motives, as there are only two possibilities here: 1. Hemant Mehta has not even given a cursory glance to the issue of rape or slavery in Scripture, so isn't qualified to speak on this issue, or 2. He knows God takes a very strong stance against both sins, but knows he can emotionally manipulate his audience if he can stop them from finding that out. Fool or liar, those are your choices.
God honoring music and movies are awful
This argument is a strong contender for the most comical argument in the whole video. Of course, we could contest the point by showing that successful musicians, such as Bach, were Christians seeking to honor God. But such a counterpoint would legitimise this asinine argument. I honestly want to look this guy in the eyes and ask him "Hemant Mehta, are you serious?" What was he thinking when he presented this argument? How much alcohol had he consumed when he set up his camera and said that his personal opinion on Christian music/movies is a half decent refutation of God's existence? Do I even need to explain why Mehta's subjective taste in music and/or movies are irrelevant to the topic at hand? I dread the day when educational standards fall so low that this can be considered a legitimate argument. I have to move on.
The invisible and non-existent look alike
Hemant Mehta sat there and expelled invisible air from his lungs in order to produce the argument that invisible things look like they don't exist, and expects you to take him seriously. Do invisible things resemble things that don't exist? Sure. They also, at least visibly, resemble things that do exist, yet are not visible.
In our world, a great many things are invisible. Air, germs, UV rays, and just about everything if you happen to be blind. So what's Hemant Mehta's point? "We can't physically see God, therefore He doesn't exist" is a stupid argument. We have other reasons to accept God's existence.
No hide and seek game lasts this long
Then stop hiding. God has already done more seeking than you could reasonably ask Him to. See, as a sinner, God owes you one thing: Wrath. We literally don't deserve the air He provides us to breathe with. And yet, rather than condemn us to Hell the moment we sin, He humbled Himself, stepped into history, became human, died a sinner's death, maintained the life He gave you up to this very moment, orchestrated the circumstances by which you would receive the Gospel, and even continued to bear with you after you rejected it for the first time.
Now, consider this: many atheists have become Christians over the years. Some of them even wrote books documenting the evidence that convinced them to convert. Just recently, a man named Seth Mahiga made headlines by resigning from his position as secretary of a group called "Atheists in Kenya" because he found Jesus. In other words, God has given atheists everything they'll ever need to "find" Him. What makes the ones who refuse so special?
Science explains so much of what we used to attribute to a god
Meanwhile, mature Christians have always known that God isn't manually controlling the universe. In fact, when God does take manual control, that is called a miracle. The Bible presents an orderly universe, created by a God who doesn't act on a whim. Ironically, it is this philosophy that began science. Trying to use science to disprove God is like trying to use aeronautics to disprove the Wright Brothers.
The more we learn, the less reason we have to believe in God
One could class this as just an extension of the argument above, but I'm willing to bet there's a reason Mehta didn't elaborate here, and it isn't just "I was trying to keep the video short". I can't even realistically respond to this claim because I have been given nothing to respond to. If you're going to title a video "20 SHORT arguments against the existence of God", it makes sense to actually present arguments against the existence of God. If one of those arguments is "we have arguments", you're doing something very very wrong.
You sound crazy to people who haven't heard what you believe before
This is exactly the problem that charities such as Lifewater have when trying to explain germ theory to people who, while they are content to have easy access to clean water, are equally content to drink the same dirty water they were drinking before Lifewater showed up. It turns out, when you tell people who have never heard of a microscope that there are tiny, invisible creatures living in their water and making them sick, they tend to respond in the same way an atheist responds to Christianity. Ultimately, the way people who don't know what you know respond when you try to tell them what you know has no bearing on whether or not you actually know it. Don't believe me? Find the nearest muddy puddle and drink it all with a straw. Germs are indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist anyway.
If God didn't exist, the world would look the same
This is another example of circular reasoning. Mehta assumes that God does not exist, and then uses that to claim that God doesn't exist. In fact, ironically, you will note that I made a similar claim in this paragraph, yet presumably, no atheist would accept it. I should probably take a moment to explain why my claim and Hemant Mehta's are different.
Firstly, I wasn't using the claim as an argument for God's existence, which would be circular. But on top of that, I was actually only saying that the world we see now is consistent with the world we would expect to see if the Bible, particularly Genesis 3, is true. Theoretically, Mehta could make a similar claim about his atheism. This is where things get trippy. See, atheism is simply the rejection of gods. It is not, therefore, a solid position. Mehta could add a number of weird and wonderful beliefs to his atheism. But without defining his additions, he can't really tell us what we would expect the world to look like if he is right.
But let's talk about something else. Facebook, for example. We know for a fact that Mark Zuckerberg exists. I could, however, say something like "if Zuckerbrg didn't exist, Facebook would look exactly like it does now." But you see the flaw in that. Facebook is not self-sufficient. Someone had to design it. Of course, it doesn't need to be Mark Zuckerberg (and honestly, I rather wish it wasn't), but if someone didn't make Facebook, Facebook wouldn't exist. In the same way, the entire universe is dependent upon something like God. Its mere existence doesn't necessarily prove it's the Biblical God, but without a god, the universe wouldn't even exist, much less look as well designed as it currently does.
If God existed, He would smite me right now
Is it not possible that God is mature enough not to be baited by such childish games? A time will come when Hemant Mehta will stand before God, but it is far better for God to continue operating the same way He has for 6,000 years than to "smite" a snotty little brat just to prove a point.
Conclusion
So what do we have here? 20 short arguments against the existence of God? Not really. To summarise, what we have just looked at is: 15 arguments that do not directly address whether God exists, 5 extensions of a few of those points disguised as entirely separate points, at least 2 pitiful bragging attempts, 6 fact-free assertions, and even one claim that arguments exist in substitution of an argument! That's even ignoring the multiple fallacies I couldn't be bothered to go back and count. This video is a laughable mess, and yet, in spite of being only one atheist, Hemant Mehta has managed to perfectly portray the modern state of atheism! I couldn't have written a more convincing ad campaign for why you shouldn't become an atheist.