Home » Mind & Soul » Atheism » The Four Silver Bullets (I)

The Four Silver Bullets (I)

© Francois Tremblay

It probably comes as no surprise to anyone that there is a great number of theological arguments out there. If you are a neophyte, the amount of information needed in order to understand them may be daunting.

On the other hand, martial artists know that concentrating on the weak points of their enemies is far more efficient. Likewise, if you are an atheist interested in debating Christians but do not wish to spend a great deal of time learning each argument and counter-argument, these four "silver bullets" should serve you well against the classical arguments.

Classical arguments are those which seek to prove the existence of God from natural evidence. Most theists naturally use classical arguments when they try to prove the existence of God, but I will also give some tips for other kinds of arguments at the end of this article.

1. Special Pleading.

To commit Special Pleading is to exclude what we are trying to prove from a premise that would otherwise disprove it.

The most obvious example is the Cosmological Argument's premise that "everything that exists has a cause". Even if we accept the truth of this premise (which, as we will see with the next fallacy, we should not), we cannot conclude that God exists on its basis. Since God exists, it would also need a cause, therefore it could not be God. The premise "everything that exists has a cause" disproves the conclusion "God exists".

In answer to this fallacy, Christians will plead that their god is "special", hence the name of the fallacy. They will answer, for instance, that God is by definition uncaused. This is all well and good, but this only means that they must reject the premise "everything that exists has a cause" as self-contradictory and abandon their argument, or deny that God is part of "everything that exists", but this would simply make them atheists.

2. Composition Fallacy.

The Composition Fallacy is a complex fallacy, but can be expressed simply as transposing a property of parts on a whole without justification.

For example, bricks are parts of a wall. It is fairly clear that while "the bricks (parts) are yellow, therefore the wall (whole) is yellow" is sensible, the deduction "the bricks (parts) are old, therefore the wall (whole) is old" is not sensible. The bricks may be old but arranged into a wall just yesterday. Any property that is based on relations or arrangements between parts does not apply to the whole.