Bad Atheist Arguments

If you ever ask an atheist to prove their claim that God doesn’t exist, chances are you’ll hear some truly atrocious responses. Below you’ll find some of the worst atheist arguments.

You can’t prove a negative!

This may be the most common response. Somehow many atheists have come to the conclusion that it’s not possible to prove negative claims. That begs the question as to why they would frequently make them! At any rate, this claim is clearly false as any competent logician will tell you.

There is no flat Earth.

This is a negative claim that can be easily proven true. Also, any positive claim can be negated. e.g. Prove God doesn’t not exist.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim! You prove God exists!

This is just bizarre but it’s surprising how many times it is used. Somehow many atheists believe that the person claiming that God doesn’t exist is not making a claim. Also they are admonishing you for daring to request justification for that claim. To top it off they shift the burden of proof onto you.

Prove Zeus doesn’t exist!

This is another odd one. Instead of justifying their claim that God is imaginary, they try to shift the burden of proof onto you for a different claim.

That God doesn’t exist is the null hypothesis!

Atheists sometimes attempt to ague that because “God doesn’t exist” is the null hypothesis to the claim that “God exists” they do not have to prove their claim. The null hypothesis is the claim that there is no difference between groups or no relationship between variables. So for every claim you are trying to support, there will an alternate “opposite” claim that you must reject. If you find a relationship between your variables, you have disproven the null hypothesis.

If you claim that God exists, the null hypothesis is that God doesn’t exist. But if you claim God doesn’t exist, the null hypothesis is that God does exist. Simply because a claim has a null hypothesis does not mean that the null hypothesis claim by itself doesn’t require support. When you make any claim, you have a burden of proof to support that claim.

Which God?

When asked to prove an atheist’s claim that God doesn’t exist they might proclaim “which God?”. That’s like saying “which Supreme Being?”. A being can only be supreme is there is only one such being.

Atheism is about belief! Agnosticism is about Knowledge!

This claim is made when stating that a weak atheist is the same as an agnostic. It is false because knowledge is justified true belief, so both positions involve belief. Also, when Thomas Huxley coined the term agnosticism he specifically meant it to refer to a lack of belief and lack of knowledge of God.

Are you also agnostic about fairies!

Here the atheist is trying to argue that it’s rational to believe that things that cannot be justified do not exist. This however involves committing the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. that is, fairies don’t exist because they have been proven to exist. The rational position on the existence of fairies is in fact one of agnosticism.

Shadow of the Dead God Critiques Our God Proof

Someone calling themselves Shadow of the Dead God has issued a critique of our proof for the existence of God. As per usual his “critique” is nothing but pompous pseudo-scientific drivel riddled with logical fallacies.

His first false claim is that we’re redefined God to be the universe. This is the second atheist criticism we deal with right in the proof in the section “Atheist Criticisms”. That he missed it or could not understand it does not bode well for his comprehension abilities.

We are not redefining anything. We are simply saying that the Universe is a being, the supreme being, God. Pantheism was the first conception of a supreme being. If anyone has redefined the concept of God it is every non pantheist.

The second false claim is that we’re “conflating” the terms God and Universe. We are not. We are equating them, saying that they are one and the same thing, not confusing two different things. There is no conflation whatsoever. He does not seem to understand what the concept of conflation refers to.

The third false claim made is that we err by assuming that there is not some physical stuff other than energy. He claims that to assert that one “would need to have a complete theory of quantum gravity, that unifies general and special relativity with quantum mechanics to assert that”. He provides no justification for this odd view presumably because there is none.

Next he falsely claims that “Laurence Krauss demonstrated that the total net energy of the universe equals zero.” Kraus did no such thing. His cancellation hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. A hypothesis with inconclusive experimental proof to support it. At any rate, these cancellation theories are not claiming that there is no energy, only that the effects of positive energy cancel out the effects of negative energy.

Next is a false claim that our proof commits an equivocation fallacy. He claims that we are equivocating “electrical and neurological synapsis that create (sic) brain activity” with “gravitational pull of black-holes”. We don’t do that at all. We’re simply saying that both such interactions ultimately involve field interactions. So he has misrepresented our argument and attacked that misrepresentation, i.e. he committed a straw man fallacy.

Next he claims that our “assertion that the universe is just one massive system of interacting energy, is patently wrong, and lacking of understanding.” He does not justify this claim and instead rambles on about how the universe does not work and nothing interacts with the universe which is something we’ve not said. He appears to be making the bizarre conflation that we’re claiming that the fact that the Universe is a system of interacting energy somehow means that we’re interacting with the Universe as a whole. It doesn’t though. This is just some nonsense he made up because he seems to have a pathological need to misinterpret what we write.

Next he make the false claim that heat death of the Universe is inevitable. It is not. Few physicists actually believe that and for those that do, their justification is merely theoretical, not an established fact. He then makes the false claim that the Universe had a beginning. The known universe possibly did but the Universe itself for all we know has always existed. A big problem here is his repeated faulty equivocation of theories with fact. This betrays a severe lack of understanding in basic science.

Here’s where it gets pretty absurd. He agreed with the following statement: “It’s important to understand that interacting energy wouldn’t cause a mental state to magically arise out of nowhere”. But he had a big problem with the following conclusion: “Energy itself must have the simplest possible default mental state”. If everything is interacting energy and the interactions do not cause mental state to arise from nowhere, the only alternative is that energy has a simple mental state that gets shaped by interaction. He proclaims that this is absurd without any justification.

With the following statement:  “It would be wrong to assume that only energy packet interaction results in mental states. Any sort of energy interaction should also produce mental states” he conflates mental states with minds and then rejects the statement with an appeal to incredulity fallacy. Because he can’t imagine that energy interactions result in changed mental states, the notion is simply proclaimed to be nonsense.

In responding to the argument summary he proclaims that while energy interactions in the brain produce mental states, no other interactions do. That shows that he is engaging in special pleading. Somehow energy interactions in the brain are special in that they alone magically bestow mentality.

He dismisses our observation that treating mentality as a special case from physicality involves special pleading by simply proclaiming that mentality supernaturally arises from the physical. No explanation is given, we are just meant to take this dogmatic statement on blind faith.

He dismisses our objection to the supernatural concept of strong emergence of mentality by simply proclaiming that mental states require a brain. Again, no justification is given, we must simply believe this on blind faith.

He dismisses our conclusion that energy has simple mentality by simply proclaiming that it is an “unfounded, unsupported and absurd assertion” and “absurd, incoherent and illogical nonsense” without finding any holes in the argument’s logic.

His rebuttal is nothing but an incoherent mishmash of pseudoscience and logical fallacies. His many unjustified proclamations amount to bare assertion logical fallacies. This is the very kind of tripe you’d encounter with young Earth creationists who are trying in vain to show that your science based arguments are wrong.

The Special Pleading of Mentality’s Strong Emergence

Humans are ultimately composed of elementary particles or fields. Every complex physical trait we have can be traced to primitive versions of this trait in these fields. Every physical thing we do is a form of movement. We can only perform these movements because the fields we are composed of have the ability to move.

These movements require energy. Our bodies have mechanisms to absorb and use energy to perform these movements. The same holds true with our elementary particles.

The ability to move our limbs doesn’t magically appear out of thin air at some point of development. It is instead directly traceable to each of our subsystems: cells, atoms, subatomic particles and elementary particles. There is not one physical attribute that is an exception to this rule. As such, complex physical phenomena are said to weakly emerge from the interactions of subsystems that possess simpler forms of these physical phenomena.

A rational person therefore would assume that this weak emergence rule would apply to our mental abilities too. That is, every complex mental phenomena we are capable of would have a simpler counterpart in each subsystem. This would mean though that the cells, atoms, subatomic particles and elementary particles that compose us would have simple forms of mentality too. That is, panpsychism is a reality.

The alternative to our subsystems possessing mentality involves the idea that mentality strongly emerges from physical sources that lack any mental capabilities. This odd scenario assumes that mentality is somehow inexplicably special. It is a unique case that applies only to mental capabilities but not physical properties. Yet no justification whatsoever has ever been presented for this special case. This is the very definition of special pleading.

Special pleading is a fallacy in which something is cited as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. Those who oppose panpsychism necessarily must embrace the strong emergence of mentality. They dogmatically adhere to this irrational outlook with only the rudimentary logical fallacy of special pleading to justify it.

It is high time that all sane scholars reject the raving irrationality of mentality’s strong emergence and instead embrace the only rational alternative, panpsychism.

Panpsychism’s Combination Non-Problem

For many philosophers the so called combination problem is panpsychism’s Achilles’ heel. The combination problem refers to not understanding how the multitude of cells (or particles) possessing simple mentality, work together to form the complex mentality that we experience.

There really is no problem at all though. We don’t seem to have a problem understanding how our complex physical properties weakly emerge from simpler forms of those properties in the cells or particles that compose us. Why on Earth then would there somehow be a problem for mental properties?

This “problem” is really just a case of special pleading. Mental properties somehow inexplicably operate differently than physical properties because some philosophers simply find the idea of panpsychism distasteful.

Highly integrated cells working together cause new physical capabilities to emerge just as our advanced mental capabilities emerge from cells with far simpler mental capabilities. The mind’s subjectness is akin to the body’s systemness. Either both have a combination problem or neither does.

Has any actual justification ever been presented that the combination problem even exists? It does not appear so. This “problem” then is merely a dogmatic fantasy or delusion based on nothing but blind faith.

The real combination problem seems to apply to anti-panpsychists. How does phenomenal experience somehow magically arise from nowhere when the right combination of particles form? This is the real question that is consistently ignored by those with a deep-seated, blindingly irrational aversion to the eminently rational position of panpsychism.

Pantheism The Mother Spirituality

Most theists (believers in God) will not want to hear this but all theisms (beliefs in God) are forms of pantheism. Panpsychism too necessarily leads to pantheism. Consider this argument:

  • The Universe is all there is.
  • There is no way that a supreme being could be less than all there is or more than all there is.
  • God can only be the Universe.

The first statement is a simple fact. The second statement though requires some clarification. Logically, barring supernatural beliefs, God cannot be more than All there is. God is a thing and therefore cannot be outside the set of all things. But can God be less than all there is? Now consider this other argument:

  • All mind is shaped by matter interaction.
  • All matter is mind.
  • All matter interacts with all other matter through gravity for one.
  • The totality of mind is Mind or God the Universe.

For the first two statements refer to our article on Proving the Existence of God. For the third statement refer to Newton’s law of universal gravitation. If all matter interacts with itself, all matter will form the ultimate mind, God. So God cannot be less that all there is. God clearly is all there is.

All claimed supernatural properties of God are unjustified and even unjustifiable and so can be flatly ignored. What is left clearly and logically shows that all forms of theism including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Deism and any others as well as panpsychism, are forms of pantheism. Truly it seems that pantheism is the mother of all theistic spiritualities.

Against the Creator Argument

Most if not all religions have a creator myth. A supremely powerful being suddenly takes the notion to create the universe out of nothing. This myth though has a simple argument against it. Consider:

  • The Universe is all there is.
  • Nothing can exist outside of all there is.
  • If a creator existed then it could at best be identical to the Universe.
  • It is impossible for the creator to create itself.
  • Therefore the “creator”/Universe must have always existed.

Note that the argument contain one important assumption: energy cannot be created or destroyed as per the law of conservation of energy.

If the creator was not the Universe then the Universe consisted of the creator and some “stuff” or “energy”. The creator could fashion this stuff into the known universe but the Universe itself, was always there and will always be there.

So as is clearly evident, the notion of a creator creating the universe out of nowhere is logically impossible. At best you could say (as we do) that the creator or God has forever been gradually creating the universe into a different form much like we recreate ourselves as we grow.

Anti-Panpsychism’s Argumentum Ad Absurdum

Panpsychism is the idea that everything in the Universe has some sort of awareness or mind. Pantheism relies on panpsychism and extends it, so it is vitally important to not only prove pantheism true but panpsychism too. The reality of panpsychism can be proven with a very simple logical argument.

The Argument

We know from biology that thinking humans are collections of individual living entities called cells and that these cells are composed of molecules. We know from chemistry that molecules are composed solely of atoms. We understand from physics that atoms are composed of subatomic particles which ultimately are composed only of elementary particles. Elementary particles are simply packets of energy. Energy packets are just energy enclosed within a field.

Everything that a human does can be traced down to interactions of these energy fields. Nothing we do can be caused by anything else unless you believe in the existence of magical paranormal forces. So, the only logical conclusion is that human mental states result from the interactions of energy packets or energy. The Universe, all that is, is composed only of energy and therefore is a vast sea of mentality.

Argumentum Ad Absurdum

Another way to prove the reality of panpsychism is to illustrate the utter absurdity of the opposing argument that the building blocks of matter have no awareness and that awareness simply appears from nowhere at some indeterminate point.

So, according to some anti-panpsychists, a human zygote has no mentality but mentality magically switches on at some precise point in its development. No mentality, then after one more neural connection it magically appears from nowhere.

Other anti-panpsychists will admit that cells have mentality but maintain that the atoms that compose them don’t. So at some magically precise point in evolution, one more molecule was added to to a primitive cell and then mentality magically appeared from nowhere.

The blatant absurdity at work here is that no actual mechanism is proposed for the development of awareness. Awareness simply appears out of nowhere for no reason at some indeterminate point of development.

Our explanation on the other hand has no such problem, awareness is simply ubiquitous. Awareness is a fundamental property of the most simple form of matter, energy. When organized into a sufficiently complex intercommunicating system, the sum total of energy is aware of itself as a system.

Proving Panpsychism

Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mental component. That is, all things, from free energy to atoms to the Universe itself have some kind of mental life.

The proof for panpsychism is exceptionally simple. The main “argument” against panpsychism is not an argument but a purely faith-based belief propped up by ridiculous pseudoscience and absurd pseudo-logic.

Basically, the claim against panpsychism is that mentality is emergent. That is, mentality magically arises from non-mental stuff at some indeterminate point in evolution. Proponents of emergence strongly dispute that this process is anything magical. But magic involves supernatural occurrences. A new fundamental property, mentality, simply occurring at some indeterminate point for no known reason out of nowhere and from nothing would most certainly be a supernatural occurrence.

Now we actually understand emergence very well in physical systems. Every emergent physical property that we understand, is an illusion that is explainable by the physical properties of the system’s constituent parts. Take the hardness property of iron. Iron is made of iron atoms which are not hard but have bonding properties which result in them combining together. We interpret this bonding as hardness. The property of hardness is an illusion that only exists in our reality but not at the reality of the atomic level. That is, if you were able to shrink down to the level of the atom you would not experience hardness. You would instead see atoms packed together.

There is no reason to believe that mentality works in a different way. In fact, it would be an extraordinary claim that mentality would operate in an entirely different way than physical processes. Particularly when there is not a single shred of evidence or even a logical argument to support such an oddly magical explanation.

So in effect, refuting the magical emergent argument for mentality is actually panpsychism’s proof. As far as we know, all emergent physical processes are explainable by simpler physical processes of a system’s component parts. Therefore mentality will be explainable by the simpler mental properties of the system’s component parts as well. Since magical creation from nothing is impossible, the smallest system must have the simplest level of mentality. When these simple systems organize into complex systems we get not only complex physical properties but we can get complex mental properties too.

Argument Summary

P. Either mentality arises from non-mental stuff or all stuff has simple mentality that can be arranged into complex forms.
P. There is no justification whatsoever that mentality can magically arise out of nothing. Therefore this claim can be rejected.
P. Further, it is impossible for complex things to arise from nowhere. Such an explanation can therefore only be supernatural.
P. All complex physical properties result from the arrangement of simpler versions of these properties in a system’s subsystems.
P. It would involve special pleading to claim that mentality would operate in a dramatically different way than physicality.
C. Therefore panpsychism must necessarily be true.

When there is only one rational explanation for something, that explanation, while not technically proven true, is the one only the irrational will reject. When an explanation appeals to supernatural magical forces, that explanation will only be entertained by the non-rational.


So human mentality is in fact emergent. But it doesn’t magically arise out of thin air from non-mental stuff. Complex mentality instead emerges from a multitude of simple mental systems operating together in a complex system. That is, human-level mentality emerges exactly the same way as the physical human being emerges as cells grow and multiply. Panpsychism is therefore an undeniable fact that philosophy and science needs to come to terms with.

Pantheism and the Fallacy of Division

Explains how our proof for the existence of God does not commit the fallacy of division.

Parts of a whole

To date the best argument against our proof for the existence of God has been an accusation of committing the fallacy of division. The fallacy of division involves claiming that because a thing has a property, the components of that thing also have that property. So because we say “We have
consciousness and because consciousness can’t magically arise out of thin air, the atoms that compose us must have consciousness.” this means we are committing this fallacy. Or does it?

Consider this argument: “We have mass. Therefore the atoms composing us have mass.” This is a correct statement. If I say though, “I have a mass of 150 pounds. Therefore the atoms composing me each have a mass of 150 pounds.” this is obviously incorrect. The difference is that the second argument is guilty of equivocating a fundamental property (mass) with a specific property (a specific amount of mass).

So what we’re saying is that consciousness is a fundamental property and that human level consciousness and atom level consciousness are specific properties. We are not equivocating human level consciousness with atom level consciousness . Therefore our argument is not susceptible to the fallacy of division.