It's Not Learned or Taught

"Religion teaches us..."

"What we learn from religion is..."

How many times have we seen these phrases or something similar? I have an idea, let's stop using them, because they are invariably followed by some inane ramblings that are either nonsensical, untrue, or both. For example:

'Religion teaches us about our relationship to god.'

Really? It teaches us something that's nonsensical and completely fabricated? And, whose religion? How does anyone know that the claims made by this religion are true or make sense? They don't? Oh, I see.

If we are being honest, there's nothing we can claim that we learn from religion or that we've been taught by religion, as religion is nothing more than made up claims that talk about nonsensical ideas that can not actually be evaluated. We may as well claim that religion has taught us that yjujkfdi saiojnn snoaing as that makes just as much sense as any claims to made-up invisible sky faeries and our relationships to them. Let's expunge these phrases from our lexicon for truth's sake.

Can You Prove It?

Why believe in that which can't be shown?

The theist may assert that it makes more sense to believe in god than not because it can be shown that god exist while it can't be shown that god doesn't exist. IOW, the atheist is taking an unprovable position while the theist is taking one that can be confirmed. Therefore, the argument goes, the atheist is taking on a position that can never be confirmed, only disconfirmed, which is a losing bet. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to be an atheist, since you can only be proven wrong, but never proven right.

This is a variation on the oft-heard argument from theists that, "You can't prove my god doesn't exist, so I'm gonna believe until you can." And, yes, I've heard both versions of this argument.

So, let's think about this idea for a bit. If we went by this "logic," we'd also have to decide that it's better to believe in unicorns, leprechauns, etc. Isn't it an unprovable position to take that unicorns/leprechauns/etc don't exist? Well, of course it is. It's just as unprovable as the idea that god does not exist. So, if the theist is justified in believing in god, then everyone is also justified in believing any other idea/creature/etc for which that non-existence is unprovable.

Of course, this is an untenable position to take for the theist. Claiming that their god belief is warranted while other beliefs are not would simply be a case of special pleading. This is why we should rightly recognize that the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive declaration - a position the theist holds by claiming that god exists. Without meeting this burden of proof, the rational position is to simply not accept the claim that god does exist, regardless of whether it can ultimately be proven or not.

Beyond the Empirical

Some (many) theists claim that god is beyond scientific/empirical scrutiny, that god, being supernatural, can not be detected by scientific/empirical means. This is usually accompanied by a smug attitude, of course, about how science/empiricism is not the only method for acquiring knowledge.

OK, so here's my very simple question:

What other method do you propose to use to detect/prove/evidence god, how do you go about using it, and how do you know it works?

It's all well and good to complain about science not showing their god, but the theist should put up or shut up and show us their methodology and see how well it works. My guess is that these theists that claim that science doesn't work will either be unable to answer the question, or will try to rely on empirical methods in the end.

Respect

Must we respect people's religious beliefs?

We often hear theists complain that atheists don't properly respect their beliefs, that we don't give them the proper deference. Because the theist holds deep beliefs, about serious, religious stuff dealing with the nature of the supernatural, these beliefs are to be held sacrosanct, by all. One is not allowed to question those beliefs, or else one is intolerant. One must simply accept those beliefs as valid and rational and act as if those beliefs are very important and worthy ones to have. (The theist, of course, is under no obligation to reciprocate or treat theists of other religions with the same deference.)

Well, sorry but "Homey don't play that." People should be respected. Rights should be respected. People have the right to believe as they do and I respect that (just don't try to foist it on me or complain if I also speak out). Beliefs themselves, however, are not automatically worthy of respect. Beliefs must be rational and defensible before they are worthy of respect. A belief in magic crystals is not worthy of respect when (because) there is no accompanying evidence for it. Same goes for a belief that one is physically eating the flesh of her god when taking communion. If a theist wants their beliefs to be respected, then that theist should present respectable beliefs. I am, however, under no obligation, morally or in terms of rights, to treat all beliefs as if they are worthy of respect.

In fact, I would go further than that. I am under an obligation to speak out when one presents beliefs that are irrational, unsupported, and are detrimental to society. This is why I speak out against religion.

Doubting Thomas

I keep hearing that Xianity is all about evidence, that Xians ask for evidence and receive it, and that god's cool with that. You know, he thinks we should be inquisitive and all that, and he'll provide evidence for us if we really want to see it. For an example of this, Xians often point to the story of Thomas. See, he doubts that Jesus has really come back from the dead, so Jesus literally has him touch the wounds that were inflicted by the crucifixion.

Wow, who could argue with that, right?

Except, there's still one small detail that usually gets left out of the story (and they say that atheists cherry pick from the Bible...) If you read just one more verse, you find this:

20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Notice the part that I took the liberty of bolding. Jesus shows Thomas the marks, and the rebukes him for needing evidence. He says that those who simply believe without requiring evidence are blessed, which doesn't include Thomas. This isn't Jesus saying that Xians should seek evidence, but that they should simply believe on faith. Instead of supporting the argument that Xianity is about evidence, it undermines it.

Drunken Monkeys

I'm back, but not fully, so I thought that I would share an interesting video on monkeys and their drinking habits. Notice how alike they are to humans, especially the percentages of binge drinkers, moderate drinkers, and teetotalers.

I also wanted to share part of an essay by Sam Harris, wherein he speaks about animal behavior:

And just how widespread must “glimmerings” of morality be among other animals before [Francis] Collins—who, after all, knows a thing or two about genes—begins to wonder whether our moral sense has evolutionary precursors in the natural world? What if mice showed greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice than unfamiliar ones? (They do.[11]) What if monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage-mates from receiving painful shocks? (They will.[12]) What if chimps have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food rewards? (They might.[13]) Wouldn’t these be precisely the sorts of findings one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution?

...

11 Langford DJ, Crager SE, Shehzad Z, Smith SB, Sotocinal SG, et al. (2006) Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice. Science 312: 1967-1970. ↩

12 Masserman JH, Wechkin S, Terris W (1964) “Altruistic” Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys. Am J Psychiatry 121: 584-585. ↩

13 Our picture of chimp notions of fairness is somewhat muddled. There is no question that they notice inequity, but they do not seem to care if they profit from it. Brosnan SF (2008) How primates (including us!) respond to inequity. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res 20: 99-124. Jensen K, Call J, Tomasello M (2007) Chimpanzees are rational maximizers in an ultimatum game. Science 318: 107-109. Jensen K, Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) What’s in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism and spite in chimpanzees. Proc Biol Sci 273: 1013-1021. Silk JB, Brosnan SF, Vonk J, Henrich J, Povinelli DJ, et al. (2005) Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. Nature 437: 1357-1359. Brosnan SF, Schiff HC, de Waal FB (2005) Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proc Biol Sci 272: 253-258.

Reality

I've noticed a certain trend amongst many Xians that debate, and that is to simply disregard anything that contradicts their view and/or assert the opposite and claim that they are right by default. For instance, if one claims the Bible has contradictions, they simply claim it does not and nothing you do can counter that. If you show them the evidence for evolution, they simply claim that what they believe is true because it's true and your evidence doesn't count for anything.

I attribute this to a weird belief that one's beliefs are more important and more compelling than reality or real world data. If real world data conflicts with their beliefs, they simply discard the data. They hold their beliefs up to be the best data that there is. Their beliefs are incontrovertible, they are true no matter what, etc.

Yet, reality does not operate that way. It doesn't matter how hard you believe that you can breathe in space unaided, it ain't gonna happen. It doesn't matter how hard you believe you can fly unaided like a bird, it ain't gonna happen. I think most theists accept these two facts. So, why does the theist believe that this doesn't hold when it comes to their personal god beliefs? That, I don't know. I wish I did. Anyone have any hypotheses?

Evident Evidence?

So, apparently some apologists think that we all have enough evidence to be convinced that god exists. Yet, it's demonstrable that this is not the case. Just look at the presence of atheists or non Xians, and this assertion is clearly false, unless one wants to try and argue that all non-Xians really believe in god but are denying it for whatever reason, which is clearly absurd. If we had the evidence that we need, we would all believe. Plus, god, being omniscient and all, would know what we all need in order to believe. So, god can't claim that we have what we need, especially when he knows that we don't.

The apologist might object, however, that god can't give us the evidence we need as it would violate our free will. But, isn't that exactly what theists try to do when trying to convince others of god? Isn't the theist trying to give us the argument that we need to come to god? Is that a violation of our free will? I don't think anyone would claim that the theist is violating the atheist's free will by arguing for god. Then why would one claim that if god gave us that information it would somehow be a violation of our free will? This is a case of special pleading.

So, bottom line is that god has made an error in the Bible by claiming something that is not true. Actually, worse than that, if god really is omni-max, then god has lied. Of course, in reality, it's just another example of how the Xian myth simply doesn't make sense.

(P.S. "Acedemics" indeed.)

OK, so many creationists just don't get it - let me spell it out. The Flintstones was not a documentary.

First, let's get something straight. A scientific theory is a well supported explanation of natural phenomena, facts, and data that is has not been falsified, and best explains the data we have. Theories are the upper echelon of science. Theories are not wild-assed guesses, as some creationists like to pretend. Nor are theories simply problematic guesses trying to become laws. Laws and theories are quite distinct things in science and there isn't a hierarchy whereby ideas go along stages, with "law" being the last and best stage.

Also, science changes as new data becomes available. This is not a failing of science, but a strength. It shows a willingness to incorporate the best information we have in formulating the best explanations that we can.

Evolution is a theory. It is well supported by many independent lines of scientific inquiry (paleontology, biology, genetics, geology, etc.) We have many different independent lines of evidence that support it. Evolution is built on facts, many facts, and is the over-arching explanation of those facts. No other alternative "explanation" even comes close (and no, creationism and ID are not theories - they aren't even proper hypotheses). Evolution has been rigorously tested for over 150 years now and it is still weathering the test of time, even though it has made predictions that could have falsified it (like the chromosomal fusion of human chromosomes from our last common ancestor with apes that was predicted and found, for example).

Evolution, as an explanation, is (very simplified) that mutations to the genetic material of organisms provide for variation, which is then selected by nature for survival and the passing on of those genes.

All animals on the planet are just as evolved as we are. We are not more evolved than other animals. Evolution is happening still.

Evolution is not random. The variations that arise do have a random component, but selection is not a random process.

It does not mean that we should see giant flies with 20 wings, or dats (dog/cat crosses). It doesn't mean that we will grow another arm (not unless genetic material for another arm arises and is selected for over say the next 20 million years that is).

Now, why go through all this? It's because I'm constantly amazed at the amount of creationists who know just about nothing about evolution, but are dead sure it's wrong. They don't know what a theory is. They don't know how science works. They don't know how evolution works. They don't even understand the very, very simplistic overview that I just gave above.

But they do know that it all has to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Do these creationists really think that either virtually all scientists are part of some atheistic conspiracy to dupe the public, or that virtually all scientists are stupid or blinded by atheism and that they, having done no research or any other lab work, somehow know more than the professionals? Any other options?

Evidential Gaps

A favorite creationist tactic is to deny any and all evidence for any piece of science that contradicts their beliefs. But, some take it even further. They will look at the evidence that does exist, declare that it's not enough, then summarily dismiss all the evidence as non-existent. I hope the following example shows how absurd this line of thinking is.

Suppose person A lives in California and person B lives in New York. Let's say that person A and person B run into each other in CA and person A asks how person B got there. B claims that she drove her car from NY to CA. A then asks for evidence.

B remembers that she kept some of her receipts. She has receipts from gassing up a couple times along the way. She has some receipts from eating meals along the road. But, alas she doesn't have every single receipt, so she can't form an unbroken line. Further, she can't account for the gaps in between receipts - for instance, how did she get to dinner from lunch? She can present her car, but this is not enough for A. A claims that due to some missing receipts and not having enough evidence, none of the receipts, the car, or anything else that B presents count as evidence that B did indeed drive across the country.

Clearly, this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater though. A has taken the evidence that does exist, and thrown it away as if it did not simply because it did not meet A's demands. Without a full explanation down to some nebulous detail, nothing counts at all toward an explanation in A's eyes. Yet, it's absurd to claim that those receipts do not constitute some evidence of the claim made by B, as we can all hopefully see. Never-the-less, we see this attitude from creationists all the time in denying wide swathes of science, whether it be evolution, abiogenesis, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, or even modern medicine. In short, the creationist would rather deny reality in order to hold onto her preconceptions than to accept reality for what it is and shape her beliefs around it. Yet, it's a bad argument to make, because it only makes the creationist look silly and uninformed.

As I've talked about before, denying the bad assumptions made by theists does not necessarily mean that the atheist is making her own assumption. This is a rather common error, however, that theists often make. "Well, I assume god and you assume not god, so we're even." No, we are not. I do not need to assume not god in order to point out the holes in your logic and that your assumption is bad. I simply need not to accept your assumption as valid. This does not mean that I'm asserting my own assumption.

But, since this is so hard to understand for some, I thought I would try to create an example to illustrate the point. Let's say that two people are setting up a sting operation where they are going to be listening to a multi-national group of people. Let's pick up the conversation in progress:

Person A - Here's how the plan will go. We'll tap their phones and their meeting room and then we'll have Jane listen in. I assume that Jane will be able to understand any language they choose to use and with her help, we will be able to get the information we need. I guarantee success.
Person B - Um, wait. You assume Jane will be able to understand them?
A - Yes. Why not?
B - Do you know what language they'll be using?
A - No.
B - Do you know what languages Jane understands?
A - No.
B - I'm highly skeptical of your guarantee that this will work.
A - Oh, you're just assuming that Jane can't do it. I assume that she can. What's the difference? You have your assumption, and I have mine. We may as well just go into this operation and believe it will work.

So, in this example, did Person B really assume that Jane can't understand whatever language they use, or did Person B simply point out that the assumption may be faulty (probably is faulty, since most humans don't have the language skills of C3PO)? The analogy breaks down a bit in the theism question, because it's very hard to simply wait and see (although some theists do advocate simply waiting and seeing what happens after death) but I think it's instructive. Questioning or not accepting someone's assumptions do not entail negative assumptions or contrary assumptions are being made. This is of utmost importance in the philosophical debate over god, because theists really are sitting on a bad hand. They are required to make unsupported (read, irrational) assumptions in order to get to their preferred ending point, while the atheist is not under any such obligation.

Puddles

Isn't it amazing how god made the planet just so, so that we can exist on it? I mean, look at how well the environment is suited to us. We happen to see colors, breathe air, eat food, etc. How could this not be god at work?

How many times have you seen the above argument? I happen to see it quite often, and the many variations on it. I think my favorite response is what Douglas Adams said. He likened this line of thought to a puddle looking at the hole that it is in and claiming that it so perfectly fit the shape of the hole that the hole must have been made to fit the puddle perfectly.

We know, of course, that due to the properties of water that it fits into the hole, and not the other way around. If we were to take that water and place it into a different hole, it would happen to fit that hole as well, regardless of the differences in shape between the holes.

The same can be said of animals on this planet, including humans. The reason that we can see color, breathe air, gain sustenance from food is not because the environment was crafted for us, but because we evolved to survive in the environment in which we live. When oxygen was in short supply in the atmosphere, lifeforms on this planet did not use it. It was a waste product. As oxygen levels built up, mass extinctions happened because the organisms living were literally choking to death on it. As variation and natural selection lead to organisms that could use this oxygen, a balance was established that has persisted to this day (after quite a few imbalanced mass extinction events). We breathe oxygen because our ancestors evolved the ability to do so. There's no reason to posit a god that came down and put oxygen in the atmosphere in order for us to breathe, and in fact, that's contrary to the evidence that we do have.

Is it Laziness or Lies?

Try something for me. Visit a Xian blog and ask for evidence that Jesus existed that is contemporary to his life. You won't get it, but you will get a whole bunch of references to the gospels being eye witness testimonies, references to Josephus, etc. It seems that most Xians you find are blissfully unaware of the problems that abound with these sources (i.e. that the gospels were written well after the fact and not by eye witnesses, or that the writings of Josephus were later fabrications by Xians desperate to support their mythology).

This bothers me. Why is it that Xians can't be bothered to find out the facts?

Well, as it turns out, not all Xians are too lazy to look things up. Some are, and they rightly deserve to be called out on it, but some actually do look these things up. The problem is that the experts of the religion (popular apologists like Lee Strobel or William Lane Craig) uncritically assert this baloney and dupe innocent others into unwillingly passing on falsehoods. Now, either these Xian "scholars" are themselves duped or they are intentionally passing on lies.

Maybe they are themselves duped. This has become a cottage industry, the passing on of Xian lore, the upkeep of the religion. The old "scholarship" of Xian "scholars" that declared these things doesn't get purged because people simply want it to be true. So, even the modern "scholars" have been duped and brought in, and they can't be bothered to look outside of their own interests to find out what the reality is.

Or, maybe they simply like their position of power or their ability to sell books to an ever-eager audience that so desperately wants Xianity to be true and to be historically supported. There's lots of reasons why they would intentionally seek to mislead the masses.

That the options come down to deceit or simply incompetence or laziness does not speak well of the Xian "scholarly" community.

god vs. the Unicorns

Two times recently I've seen Xians whining about not being taken seriously, because atheists compare belief in god to belief in unicorns or the FSM or Santa Claus, or leprechauns. "You're not taking us seriously enough," they whine. They also whine that belief in god is reasonable while belief in those others things is not.

So, what evidence do they have for this? Really, it all boils down to an argument from popularity. You see, more people believe in god, have said they felt god, etc. than leprechauns, unicorns, etc. so that somehow proves that a) belief in god is rational, b) belief in god is at least worth looking into while belief in those other things isn't, or other such trivially stupid assertions.

So, for your edification, theists, here is what you need to give us to show that belief in your god really is more warranted than belief in any other fanciful notion: evidence. It's that simple. And, no, your cousin's testimony that she felt god within her doesn't count, because it's too easy to have been falsified or wishful thinking on her part. And, no, your holy books don't count because they were written by men, not god, no matter how much they may exclaim that their words come from god. What we need is real, tangible evidence that unequivocally leads to the god that you have in mind. Saying, "Well, the universe was created, so my god wins," also doesn't cut it, and not only because saying that would be not even wrong.

I predict, however, that all we will ever see is more whining, as apologists have yet to pray hard enough to produce any evidence for their gods. Oh, but I'm sure we'll see many more proclamations about the overwhelming evidence that they may someday get around to presenting.

Piltdown Man

Anti-evolutionists love to trot out the old Piltdown Man hoax as if it were some sort of proof against evolution, but if they understood what actually happened a bit better, they would not be so quick to do this.

Piltdown Man was a hoax. It was, however, never actually accepted by most of the scientific community. The reason for this was that it didn't quite fit the rest of the data that supported evolution. It was an outlier. Scientists were skeptical from the outset.

While the press was eating up this new find, scientists went to work testing the find, examining, trying to verify - in short, they did science. And, they soon discovered that their skepticism was well founded, the Piltdown Man was a fake. This was good news for evolutionary scientists, as the Piltdown Man was hard to reconcile with prevailing theory, so the realization that it was not real meant there was no more challenge. Further, it showed that science works. Scientists were able to police themselves by using further study, by using the process of science itself! This was not a black mark for science, it was a triumph!

In summary, when creationists trumpet Piltdown Man, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot. It was never part of evolutionary theory, so the realization that it was a hoax presents no problem for evolution. Further, it wasn't creationists who even discovered the hoax, but real scientists doing real science that discovered it and set things right.

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor:

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

This is one of the various translations for Occam's famous saying. The more familiar phrasing that one usually sees is that the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. What it means is that one should eliminate as many assumptions as possible in order to reach the best explanation. If two competing hypotheses are trying to explain the same phenomenon, and both work equally well, the one that has the least assumptions behind it would be preferred. Also, the one that adds the least amount of entities would be preferred, and adding complexity to the problem is not preferred.

It's ironic, then, that Occam was a friar, because his very simple argument is not at all beneficial to theism. Some theists claim that Occam's Razor is supportive of their faith, that evolution and science are complex and that positing a god is the more simple route, and therefore preferred. This is a gross misunderstanding of the idea, however, in that positing a new layer that is more complex than any other is not the preferred explanation for anything, and god is the most complex, unnecessary layer that one can add. (Note, I've also seen theists claim that goddidit seems like the simplest explanation to them, so therefore they use Occam's Razor to affirm their belief, but this falls into the same problem as above, and also adds an extra layer of subjective assumptions and hence is an even worse formulation.)

Logical Fallacies

Some theists are honest enough to admit that theism requires one to make logical errors (fallacy) in one's thinking in order to arrive at their god. Bravo. These theists, however, will inevitably also claim that atheism requires one to make logical errors as well. They claim that the atheist must assume that only matter and energy exist, which, they claim, is begging the question. I've also seen the claim that we have to assume that god doesn't exist, and we can't know that since we can't know everything unless we are god, which would self-defeat our claim. Both of these claims are incorrect, however.

Simply put, in a discussion between theism and atheism, the theist puts forth a positive truth claim, and thus bears the burden of proof. When the theist inevitably fails to provide the necessary evidence (especially since it will necessarily be based on a logical fallacy as per above) than the atheist be well within her rights to simply say, "You have not met your burden of proof, therefore I do not accept your claim and do not believe in your god." This does not entail a logical fallacy. It's not logically fallacious to deny unevidenced claims, no matter how much the theist wants to believe that their beliefs are on ground as solid as the atheist's.

But, don't we assume matter and energy are all there is? No, we don't. We provisionally hold that matter and energy are the only things we have evidence for and infer from there. There's nothing fallacious about that.

Don't we assume that god doesn't exist? Of course not. There's no need to assume that an unevidenced god (and in many cases a logically contradictory god) does not exist. It is up to the theist to show otherwise, and logically sound to disbelieve until that happens. If it were not logically sound, then one can claim that it is logically fallacious not to believe in Thor, Baal, invisible, pink unicorns, FSM, leprechauns, etc. This idea, however, is easily seen as the absurdity that it is. Far form catching us atheists making mistakes and putting theism on just as solid ground, the theist only ends up admitting their irrationality.

Unconvincing

god is not very good at getting things done, is he? If god wants to convince us that he exists, he's doing a rather poor job. Even in the Bible, he doesn't do such a good job. He continually shows himself to the Jews in the OT (some of them at least) and performs all kinds of miracles, and they continually turn away to worship other gods. Seems that he's not very convincing. Then, when he comes down in human form, he still can't get people to believe in him. That's pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Xian apologists chalk this up to humans being bad. But, I think that the common denominator in the equation happens to be god in all instances. It is god that can not convince others of his existence. Why do we not consider the fact that god may very well simply be inept and incompetent, or that maybe he doesn't wish for all of us to be convinced of his existence?

Think about when Jesus, a living god, was here and was unable to provide arguments that were perfect and unassailable. The Bible certainly doesn't show him presenting irrefutable arguments. Why not? Why can't a god in human form present arguments and proof that is unassailable? Could god be incompetent? One of the Xian tenets is that god is perfect, which would seem to preclude that god is incompetent. Therefore, the only choice left (besides that humans are stupid and evil, which brings its own problems) is that god intentionally did not wish to convince all of his existence. If that is the case, the god is intentionally seeking to punish humans and put them in hell. Again, we find the actions of god are not in line with his alleged wish that all should be saved.

Knowledge

Many theists assert that god's truth as revealed by revelation is the best way to know about the world, that it is true knowledge, etc. But, is it really? Can anyone name anything that we can say that we know and learned via revelation? For every revelation that anyone can present, there are plenty of contradictory revelations. Each of these revelations are claimed to be from a deity (sometimes contradictory revelations are claimed to be from the same deity) with no way to discern which is true and which one to believe.

On the other hand, we do have a system that works that does bring us knowledge, and that is the scientific method. Through the use of this method, we have made untold discoveries about the world around us, have learned untold numbers of facts, etc. The success rate for science is sky high; it has proven itself to be effective. So, can any theists point to anything we've actually learned from revelation?

Good vs. Evil

Typical apologist argument for god: god exists because good and evil exist and we could not have good and evil without an objective standard from god.

There are, of course, numerous problems with this argument. First, it is assumed that good and evil are objective things, which has not been shown. This would be begging the question. The best we can discern is that the concepts of good and evil are man-made. They come from our culture. This is why a Muslim man might find killing his daughter to be good if she has dishonored the family while another person would look at this action as highly immoral.

Another problem is the assumption that without god, nothing can be objective. This is simply not true, however. There are numerous philosophies devoted to developing objective standards of good and evil, like Utilitarianism, that don't depend at all on some edict given from on high from some deity.

Another problem is the fact that the argument assumes god's existence and that only god can provide such things as good and evil. This is begging the question. Since we have no evidence for god, what is left for the apologist is to argue against every other conceivable option, until only the option of god is left. This is clearly impossible though, because how would one know if all the options (known and unknown) have been examined properly?

One more issue I'd like to bring up is that the apologist in the this argument usually seems to demand that only their god can fit the bill, when in reality, if their argument actually held weight, just about any god would be capable of fitting the bill. In short, even if this argument didn't have the above problems, it would still only be an argument for some type of theistic thought and that's it.