Had there been theistic/atheistic debates 1300 years ago, my relatives might have heard this definite argument for the Thundergod Thor:
- Without Thor there can be no lightning.
- Lightning exist.
- Therefore Thor exist. QED.
The atheist in that time would properly have gone after #1. I imagine the theist would have said:
"When Thor gets mad, he ride his car across the sky, swing his hammer mjoldner, and lightning fires out from it. You can see a mini-example of this down at the blacksmith. Therefore there is lightning. Now, my learned collegue, what is your explanation for lightning?"
It would have been a slam-dunk victory: The theist just offered an explanation, the atheist could only make extremely weak arguments that could quickly be taken apart basically by rediculing them. instant win: Thor exist.
The same argument has been repeated again and again through history with different Gods substituted for "Thor" and different things substituted for "lightning", eg.: floods, the earth, the color of the sky, the rainbow, human, the sea, the neighboring tribe, vulcanic eruptions, famines, death, life, etc. etc.. Today the argument still make its rounds, in particular with the following words:
- Big Bang
- Absolute Morals
- The Fine-tuning of the constants in the universe
- Early life on earth
- Logical truths
And it is extremely effective in a debate.
But i think it should be cause of concern the argument would have slam-dunk proven Thor in year 700AC. Here is why: Rearranging the argument it go like this:
- You cant explain lightning
- Thor can explain lightning
- Lightning exist
- Therefore Thor exist. QED.
formulated in this way it become obvious why the argument fail: the theist didnt really explain lightning. Stated more precisely, his explanation failed in any way an explanation could:
- He dont explain when we can expect lightning to happend (Thor is mad when he is mad)
- He dont explain any properties of lightning (Mjoldner make lightning like it make lightning)
- He dont predict anything about lightning (Lightning is what happends. it is what it is)
- He dont say anything that can be of any use to us (like how to avoid lightning)
- He introduce several, abstract, entities which go against our daily experience like:
- Magic hammer
- Flying car dragged by magic animals
- God with anger management problem
At the end of the day, he only say: "Thor didit like he doesit because he wantit". But because he say it like a small story with magic "just-so" elements, it seem like he actually offered an explanation -- hence it seem like its a good explanation, while in reality, its a very implausible way of saying: "I dont know".
But it gets even worse. When science begin to nipple apart the Thor-hypothesis, the Thor-appologist begin to incorporate things into his story, or just explain things away. For example:
- electricity is just the mean Thor use.
- well, Thor could be many places at once. His rage is not confirmed to one location
- well, who say a God have a radar signature? he may be invisible!
Returning to the things people use in these type of arguments:
- Big Bang
- Absolute Morals
- The Fine-tuning of the constants in the universe
- Early life on earth
- Logical truths
God does not offer an explanation for any of these things.
Its just a "God didit like he doesit because he wantit, therefore i am right because you cant explain it!". Furthermore, for allmost all of these "problems", science is beginning to pick them apart: Big Bang is a lot less mysterious today than it was 30 years ago (or 100 for that matter), progress is being made in studying how life could have arisen on the early earth, the fine-tuning argument is loosing constants every now and then (say it aint so), and so on and on.
but its immaterial: Before the theist show how God offer an explanation for these things which is better than: 'we dont know', they are simply not an argument for God any less than lightning is an argument for Thor.