God on Trial, Part 3

The posts in this series are excerpted from an article titled “God on Trial:  Applying Modern Legal Standards to Assess Arguments For and Against the Existence of God” by Michael Conklin in the Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2025.

“Arguments Against the Existence of God

Existence of Evil/Suffering

…This argument generally takes the following form:  an omniscient, omnipotent God would not want any evil or suffering on Earth and would have the power to remove evil and suffering; therefore, the presence of evil and suffering proves that there is no God…

The argument fails because the two assumptions required by the premises – that God necessarily desires to eradicate all pain and suffering on Earth and that omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence would make such an act possible – are both false…

[W]hile it is true that God could create a world without any evil or suffering, accomplishing this would require stripping every creature of free will. ..

This argument also fails because there is a plethora of valid reasons why a God would permit evil and suffering.  The ability of our central nervous system to transmit the feeling of pain serves a valuable function that helps keep us alive, such as when we experience excruciating cold temperatures and seek out warmth…Futhermore, if there were no pain and suffering, there would be no opportunity for humans to be compassionate to others and no opportunity to experience the compassion of others…

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

…[This] argument presumes that there is some level of overwhelming proof that would compel everyone to believe in God.  But as even some atheists have admitted, regardless of how salient God were to make Himself, they would nevertheless refuse to believe…

…One Less God Than Monotheists

One argument that is repeatedly made by atheists is how, in comparison to a monotheist, the atheists believe in one less God…The reason this is a complete non sequitur is that it merely states the definitional difference between a monotheist and an atheist; it has no significance as to whether God does or does not exist…

Negative Effects of Belief in God

Some atheists have attempted to make a case against the existence of God by claiming that belief in God is harmful to humans…[This] would be excluded [in a court of law]…as lacking relevance and likely…for being unfairly prejudicial.  The same would be true if the theist attempted to argue that God does exist because of the benefits that come from believing in God.  In both instances, the truth value of the proposition –  that God either does or does not exist – is completely independent of its social consequences.

Argument from Scale

Some atheists have attempted to point to the vastness of the universe as evidence against the existence of God…There are numerous potential explanations for why God might want to create a large universe, and no reason to believe that God would be obligated to create a smaller universe…

Future Evidence…

Many atheists seem to be relying heavily on an optimistic hope that some future discovery will serve as evidence for atheism…But…merely pointing to the possibility of such future evidence does nothing to support atheism….[T]he theist would be equally justified in positing that, if such evidence for atheism were to be found, some later evidence might then be found refuting the atheist’s future evidence…

Conclusion

As demonstrated throughout this Article, when courtroom standards are applied to this question in an intellectually honest manner, the only logical conclusion is that it is more likely than not that God exists…This conclusion is relevant to nearly every aspect of our lives, as it helps answer profound questions about our origin, moral obligations, and ultimate purpose.”

Parts 1 and 2 in this series were posted 1/18/26 and 1/25/26, respectively

READERS CAN FIND MY VIEWS ON ABUSE AND ABUSE-RELATED ISSUES AT A Voice Reclaimed, Surviving Child Abuse and More
https://avoicereclaimed.com