Rob Hurson, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Top 3 arguments for God’s existence (And why they fail)
For many, the existence of a god is a basic assumption that they find readily apparent. Many go through periods of doubt in which they question that underlying assumption, but community, values, and traditions tend to bring them back into the fold eventually.
Sometimes, it takes a philosophical argument to allay someone’s skepticism; a neatly packaged bit of rhetoric that assures them that someone else has already encountered the same problem and solved it. But if they dig a little deeper, I think they’ll find that their skepticism is still warranted, because these seemingly convenient arguments don’t actually cut mustard.
Sometimes, it takes a philosophical argument to allay someone’s skepticism; a neatly packaged bit of rhetoric that assures them that someone else has already encountered the same problem and solved it. But if they dig a little deeper, I think they’ll find that their skepticism is still warranted, because these seemingly convenient arguments don’t actually cut mustard.
How do you prove the existence of God?
Proving the existence of any god is predicated on which god you’re talking about. For the purposes of this article, let’s say you’re referring to the Christian Triune God. Proving His existence would be a miraculous feat, indeed, since He’s not very clearly defined in text (see: Genesis 32:31 vs Exodus 33:20) or in worship (see: the vast preponderance of different sects).
Therefore, most theistic philosophers argue for a theoretical god with certain characteristics, such as being personal, compassionate, and/or all-powerful. This is a sound tactic, and one I wholeheartedly agree with because it gives atheists something clear to debate.
What I don’t agree with is the idea that proving a theoretical god somehow also proves the existence of the God of the Bible. That God might fit some of those characteristics, but so would many others who are just as ill-defined. This is an important distinction because, if you find yourself convinced by a philosophical argument for God, it's important to note that the argument isn't necessarily for the same God you might have lost faith in. It's for a theoretical being who might fit certain characteristics, but is almost certainly not the same God you learned about in Sunday School. That God is (all together now) not clearly defined.
So, now that we know what kind of god we're talking about, let's go through a quick primer on how philosophers go about arguing for its existence.
Therefore, most theistic philosophers argue for a theoretical god with certain characteristics, such as being personal, compassionate, and/or all-powerful. This is a sound tactic, and one I wholeheartedly agree with because it gives atheists something clear to debate.
What I don’t agree with is the idea that proving a theoretical god somehow also proves the existence of the God of the Bible. That God might fit some of those characteristics, but so would many others who are just as ill-defined. This is an important distinction because, if you find yourself convinced by a philosophical argument for God, it's important to note that the argument isn't necessarily for the same God you might have lost faith in. It's for a theoretical being who might fit certain characteristics, but is almost certainly not the same God you learned about in Sunday School. That God is (all together now) not clearly defined.
So, now that we know what kind of god we're talking about, let's go through a quick primer on how philosophers go about arguing for its existence.
The structure of philosophical arguments
If you don’t already know this, you might be surprised to learn that philosophical arguments are actually quite simple to set up:
- You start with two or more premises.
- You provide a conclusion that naturally follows from those premises.
- You explain what makes those premises accurate, and why the conclusion naturally follows from them.
That’s it! Everything that surrounds that structure, like logical fallacies and rhetorical etiquette, are seperate topics we'll explore in future articles. But the ever-growing litany of -isms and -ologies in philosophy comes from debates, literature, and ideas that use this structure to put forward an idea about life, the universe, and everything. It is, simply put, the method we use to grapple with the inconveniently complicated nature of reality.
Top 3 arguments for the existence of God
So, without further ado, here are my picks for the top three arguments for the existence of God, along with my rebuttal. All three of these reinforced my faith when I was a Christian, and it was more than a little earth-shattering when I came to accept their weaknesses. Ultimately, though, it was for the better, and I’d like to respectfully invite you to do the same.
1. Cosmological (Prime mover argument)
This argument has taken many forms over the years. The basic structure is the Kalām Cosmological Argument initially developed by Al-Ghazali in 11th-century Baghdad. Of course, he was arguing for the existence of Allah, but similar arguments for the Christian God have been put forth by Thomas Aquinas, Gottfried Leibniz, and most recently William Lane Craig.
They go something like this:
They go something like this:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
William Lane Craig goes on to attribute certain characteristics to that cause, such as timeless, personal, and powerful. These properties, he says, are “the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.”1
Quick context:
It might surprise you to learn that an up-and-coming agnostic philosopher has a form of this argument: Alex O’Connor. Instead of focusing on sequential causes, he focuses on hierarchical causes, which shifts the conversation in a novel direction.
It might surprise you to learn that an up-and-coming agnostic philosopher has a form of this argument: Alex O’Connor. Instead of focusing on sequential causes, he focuses on hierarchical causes, which shifts the conversation in a novel direction.
Why the Cosmological argument doesn’t work
The cosmological argument fails because it invites an infinite regress. If you’re willing to place a cause at the beginning of the universe, then you also have to explain what caused that cause. (i.e., “Who caused God?”) Aquinas and William Lane Craig correctly assert that God would have to be a “Prime Mover” or an “Uncaused Cause,” but that would be special pleading. It’s making up a special characteristic that lets your idea solve the problem. I could just as easily argue that the universe itself is the Uncaused Cause and skip the middleman altogether.
There’s another problem with the cosmological argument; it commits a fallacy of composition. It assumes the universe has the same properties as the things inside it. A plane made of nothing but lightweight parts, for example, is not itself a lightweight thing. Similarly, the universe might be filled with things that “began to exist,” but that terminology might not apply to the universe itself.
There’s another problem with the cosmological argument; it commits a fallacy of composition. It assumes the universe has the same properties as the things inside it. A plane made of nothing but lightweight parts, for example, is not itself a lightweight thing. Similarly, the universe might be filled with things that “began to exist,” but that terminology might not apply to the universe itself.
2. Teleological (Fine-tuning argument)
The Teleological Argument has been around for centuries, too. William Paley crystallized it with his famous watchmaker analogy in 1867, but it took on many forms before and after that. Every fine-tuning argument, though, shares the same basic structure:
- The [Subject] has [Characteristic] that could not possibly have been caused by natural forces or random chance.
- Things that aren’t reasonably explained by natural forces or random chance necessitate intentional design.
- The [Subject] was intentionally designed.
Many different subjects and characteristics fit into this argument, such as the eye and its supposed irreducible complexity, or humans and our unique self-awareness. In either case, the theologian posits that neither natural causes nor random chance could have brought them about, and so, a designer is needed. That designer, in the opinion of William Paley, George N. Schlesinger, and Robin Collins, must be a personal God who willfully intervened to create such things.2
Quick context:
"Random chance" is a term that gets throw around a lot in these debates, but evolution is not random. It emerges from genetic mutation and natural selection ("suvival of the fittest"). Genetic mutations can be unpredictable, but the natural selection they go through leads to organic, gradual change across several thousand generations.
"Random chance" is a term that gets throw around a lot in these debates, but evolution is not random. It emerges from genetic mutation and natural selection ("suvival of the fittest"). Genetic mutations can be unpredictable, but the natural selection they go through leads to organic, gradual change across several thousand generations.
Why the Teleological argument doesn’t work
The main issue with fine-tuning arguments is that they’re arguments from ignorance. They assert that some complex things must have been designed simply because we can't think of another reason for their existence. Whether it’s the eye or the bacterial flagellum motor, several supposed examples of irreducible complexity have been researched over the years. One by one, they've been dismissed.3
The most convincing form of this argument points to the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental forces of nature, and indeed, these are impressively tight constrains. For example, if the strong or weak nuclear forces were a hair’s breadth different either way, matter might not cohere. But we have no way of knowing that for sure.
Our sample size of universes that "work" is precisely one, and its fundamental realities are under no obligation to be intuitive for us to understand. To assume that the mysterious reason for our universe being the way it is must be a personal God would be to make a God of the gaps argument. Science has closed hundreds of such "gaps" over the years, and there’s every reason to withhold judgment until it’s had the opportunity to close this one.
The most convincing form of this argument points to the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental forces of nature, and indeed, these are impressively tight constrains. For example, if the strong or weak nuclear forces were a hair’s breadth different either way, matter might not cohere. But we have no way of knowing that for sure.
Our sample size of universes that "work" is precisely one, and its fundamental realities are under no obligation to be intuitive for us to understand. To assume that the mysterious reason for our universe being the way it is must be a personal God would be to make a God of the gaps argument. Science has closed hundreds of such "gaps" over the years, and there’s every reason to withhold judgment until it’s had the opportunity to close this one.
3. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Unlike other arguments for the existence of a philosophical, theoretical god, this one specifically argues for the Christian Triune God, which carries a much higher burden of proof.
- If the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened, it would be good evidence for God’s existence.
- The Resurrection of Jesus Christ has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Therefore, we have good evidence for God’s existence.
The strength of this argument relies on the proof Christians put forward for the Resurrection. The strongest proofs are:
- The empty tomb: We have no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus’ body was ever found.
- Unlikely reports: The first witnesses to the Resurrection were women, whose testimony held very little credibility in those times. They would have made a poor choice if you were going to fabricate such a story.
- Sincerity: Jesus’ disciples, and even skeptics like Paul and James, were willing to face severe hardship and even death to defend their beliefs that they met the risen Jesus.
Why the argument for The Resurrection of Jesus Christ doesn’t work
The argument for The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is formed as a deductive one, with a conclusion that would naturally follow if the premises were accurate. However, premise #2 subtly shifts the discussion to inductive probability. After all, what is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” if not “convincing evidence that the claim is likely true”?
What we’re really discussing is whether the claim of a literal Resurrection is more likely than it being fabricated. When put that way, it’s easier to see the flaw: an unprecedented supernatural event has next to zero chance of being the best interpretation of historical evidence.
After all, civilizations across time have had plenty of sincere, even unlikely, believers, and it’s no more likely that Jesus’ Resurrection is true than it is that Horus, Romulus and Remus, or Attis were born of virgins. As we demand of any of these extraordinary claims, we'd need extraordinary evidence. Secondhand accounts written decades after the supposed event don't clear that bar.4
What we’re really discussing is whether the claim of a literal Resurrection is more likely than it being fabricated. When put that way, it’s easier to see the flaw: an unprecedented supernatural event has next to zero chance of being the best interpretation of historical evidence.
After all, civilizations across time have had plenty of sincere, even unlikely, believers, and it’s no more likely that Jesus’ Resurrection is true than it is that Horus, Romulus and Remus, or Attis were born of virgins. As we demand of any of these extraordinary claims, we'd need extraordinary evidence. Secondhand accounts written decades after the supposed event don't clear that bar.4
Have opinions? Let’s debate!
Theologians have pushed the boundaries of reason for millennia in their efforts to find a definitive argument for the existence of God. In that time, they’ve come up with some fascinating questions and helped to surface incredible insights about humans and our place in the cosmos. The quick summations in this article are just that, and there’s a wealth of literature surrounding each argument that’s well worth a deeper dive.
My first book, Choose Your Own Debate With: An Atheist, dives deeper into these and many more theistic arguments. Check it out in my Works in Progress page, and follow me on Bluesky to see how it's coming along.
My first book, Choose Your Own Debate With: An Atheist, dives deeper into these and many more theistic arguments. Check it out in my Works in Progress page, and follow me on Bluesky to see how it's coming along.
References
1: The Kalam Argument | Popular Writings | Reasonable Faith. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2026, from https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument.
2: Design Arguments for the Existence of God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2026, from https://iep.utm.edu/design-arguments-for-existence-of-god/
3: Bridgham, J. T., Carroll, S. M., & Thornton, J. W. (2006). Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation. Science, 312(5770), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123348
4: BDEhrman. (2018, October 24). How Reliable are Oral Traditions? The Bart Ehrman Blog. https://ehrmanblog.org/how-reliable-are-oral-traditions/
2: Design Arguments for the Existence of God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2026, from https://iep.utm.edu/design-arguments-for-existence-of-god/
3: Bridgham, J. T., Carroll, S. M., & Thornton, J. W. (2006). Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation. Science, 312(5770), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123348
4: BDEhrman. (2018, October 24). How Reliable are Oral Traditions? The Bart Ehrman Blog. https://ehrmanblog.org/how-reliable-are-oral-traditions/
I'm looking for representation
Interested?
Interested?
Let's Discuss
