My Atheist Friend and the Question of God’s Existence — Fallacies Accusation | From Darkness To Light Ministry

When “Fallacy” Becomes a Shield: A Respectful Response to Accusations of Faulty Reasoning

Discussions about faith and God can be meaningful opportunities to search for truth together. Recently, a friend of mine who identifies as an atheist raised several accusations that my reasoning is fallacious. I appreciated the conversation — but I also believe some of the fallacy labels were misapplied.

In this article, I want to respond respectfully and fairly, not to attack him, but to clarify the logic involved — and to explain why Christian believers like myself still find strong reasons to believe in God.

My goal is simple:

to speak the truth in love, without bias, mockery, or unfair argumentation.

1. Circular Reasoning — Was I Assuming the Bible Is True?

This discussion began when my atheist friend messaged me saying he had a question about faith. Since he was once a Christian, I assumed the question was sincere. He asked something along the lines of:

“With so many teachings, how can we know which one is true?”

Because the topic was clearly about religious belief and faith, I naturally answered from a Christian perspective. I said something like:

“If I answer from my side as a Bible believer — yes, it is possible to know the truth,”

and I explained my answer using Scripture. At first, he did not object to the use of Bible verses. But later, after I quoted John 5:39 about seeking truth in the Scriptures, he suddenly responded:

“Don’t quote Bible verses yet.”

Then he accused me of circular reasoning — as if I were arguing:

“The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.”

But that was never my claim. I was not trying to prove the Bible. I was simply answering a faith-based question from within my faith perspective. In other words, I was explaining that:

As a Christian, Scripture is my spiritual foundation — so when I search for truth in spiritual matters, I turn to the Word of God.

That is not circular logic.
That is simply explaining my worldview.

Circular reasoning only happens when someone tries to prove something by assuming it is already true. But I was not presenting a philosophical proof — I was answering a question about faith using the very source that defines that faith. Just as:

• a scientist turns to scientific research,
• a historian turns to historical documents,
• a lawyer turns to legal texts,

so a Christian naturally turns to Scripture when speaking about faith and doctrine.

So the accusation did not match what I was actually doing.

Later, my friend asked:

“Why not use a science book to search for truth?”

From how he explained it, he seemed to mean that he would only believe in God if science explicitly proved God’s existence. But this is like a man going into a hardware store looking for bread — he is searching in the wrong category. Science studies the natural world, but God — if He exists — is beyond nature, not limited to laboratory measurement.

I explained that science itself is limited, and he agreed. So if science is limited, then why should I be forced to prove an unlimited God using a limited tool?

As a Christian, I believe in the eternal God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — the Alpha and Omega — One who exists beyond physical nature. So my faith is grounded in revelation, Scripture, reason, experience, and history — not merely scientific experimentation.

At one point, my friend even suggested that we should go around telling people they had been “deceived” since childhood for believing in God. That language itself assumes his conclusion — that God does not exist — before the discussion is even finished. It reveals that the issue is not simply logic, but also presuppositions and worldview.

In summary:
When I quoted Scripture, I was not committing circular reasoning.
I was simply responding to a question about faith from within the Christian faith — which is the only honest way I can answer.

2. Appeal to Authority and Selective Credibility — Are Atheist Scientists Automatically More Rational?

In our discussion, my friend repeatedly emphasized that many elite scientists do not believe in God. He did not simply mean that “smart people are atheists.” Rather, his point was that atheist scientists base their conclusions on evidence, while scientists who believe in God are supposedly closed-minded when it comes to evidence. From this, he implied that atheism must therefore be the more rational position.

This line of reasoning, however, contains two serious problems.

First — It Still Rests on Appeal to Authority

The underlying idea remains:

“Atheism is more reasonable because many highly-educated scientists accept it.”

This is still an Appeal to Authority — assuming a belief is correct because influential or expert people hold it. Scientific expertise gives authority in scientific questions — chemistry, biology, physics — but the existence of God is ultimately a philosophical and theological question. Expertise in one field does not automatically grant final authority in another.

Second — It Assumes What It Must Prove

By saying that theist scientists are “closed-minded,” my friend is already assuming that atheism is the rational default. But that is exactly the question under discussion. This creates a circular pattern:

• “Atheists follow the evidence.”
• “How do we know?”
• “Because atheism is rational.”
• “Why is atheism rational?”
• “Because atheists follow the evidence.”

That is not an argument — it is a claim assuming itself.

This also leads to another problem. If belief in God automatically means a person is “closed-minded,” then this would include many of history’s greatest scientific thinkers — such as Sir Isaac Newton, who is often regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time. Newton was both deeply committed to scientific inquiry and firmly theistic. To dismiss all theistic scientists as irrational or closed-minded is therefore not a conclusion based on evidence, but an assumption grounded in worldview.

Third — It Quietly Dismisses One Side Without Examining It

This reasoning also risks a No True Scotsman–style move:

• If a scientist rejects God → “He follows the evidence.”
• If a scientist believes in God → “He must be biased.”

So atheism becomes unfalsifiable — every result supports it by definition. But honest reasoning requires evaluating arguments from both sides, not dismissing one in advance.

My Response Was Different in Nature

When I said that many knowledgeable people in science do believe in God, I was not claiming that Christianity is true because they believe. I was simply pointing out that:

If intelligent, scientifically trained people exist on both sides,
then scientific status alone cannot determine the truth about God.

That is not an appeal to authority — it is the removal of an authority-based claim.

A Key Clarification

Science studies the natural world.
The question of God concerns the source and ground of all existence.

So while science contributes valuable insight, it does not — and cannot — answer every metaphysical question. That is why scientists themselves differ honestly and sincerely on the matter of God.

The Real Standard Should Be This:

Not:

“Which group of experts believes what?”

But:

“Which worldview best explains reality, evidence, meaning, morality, consciousness, origins, and purpose?”

And that question belongs to both philosophy and theology, alongside science — not science alone.

3. Hasty Generalization — Question vs. Argument

When I asked:

“Why do some teachers teach evolution without believing in it?”

my friend said I was generalizing.

But a question is not a generalization.
A fallacy requires:

1. a conclusion
2. based on weak evidence

I simply asked a sincere question based on experience with Christian teachers who taught curriculum material they did not personally accept. No general claim was made.

Therefore, the fallacy accusation was misplaced.

4. Anecdotal Fallacy — Expressing Empathy Is Not Proof

When I said:

“You may not understand because you don’t feel what believers feel,”

I was not making an argument. I was acknowledging that faith includes spiritual experience — which cannot be measured scientifically.

The Anecdotal Fallacy applies only when:

a personal story is used as proof of universal truth.

Example:

“My uncle smoked every day and lived to 90, so smoking doesn’t cause cancer.”

This is an anecdotal fallacy because it uses one personal story to deny a well-established scientific truth.
Even if the story is true, it ignores the overwhelming medical evidence showing that smoking greatly increases the risk of cancer.

Anecdotes can illustrate experiences — but they cannot overturn consistent scientific data.

In logic, a single example is never enough to prove or disprove a universal claim. 

But I was not presenting evidence — only empathy.

So again, the accusation did not match the statement.

5. Hasty Generalization (Again) — Former Atheists Who Found Faith

I mentioned that some former atheists, like Dr. Walter Veith and Jeffrey Wong, eventually embraced Christianity.

My purpose was not:

“Therefore atheism is wrong.”

Instead, it was:

“Belief can change — just as yours did earlier in life.”

This is not a conclusion, just an observation.
No fallacy exists without a conclusion.

6. Misrepresentation and Inconsistency: “You Don’t Believe in Science”

In one part of our discussion, my atheist friend accused me of “not believing in science.” But this accusation was based on a misunderstanding of what I actually said. At no point did I reject science or deny its value. What I questioned was his claim that we must personally verify everything before believing it — and yet at the same time he insisted that whatever science says must be accepted immediately as truth. My response was simply to reflect his own standard back to him: If we must verify something ourselves before accepting it, then how can we automatically accept every scientific conclusion without personally testing it? That is not a rejection of science — it is a question about consistency.

Labeling my position as “anti-science” is an example of the Strawman Fallacy — misrepresenting someone’s view in a weaker or exaggerated form and then attacking that misrepresentation rather than the real position. My real position is this: I respect science, and I believe evidence should be thoughtfully examined. I do not simply accept something “because a preacher said it,” nor do I believe something “because a scientist said it.” In both faith and science, claims should be evaluated carefully. Ironically, that principle agrees with what my friend said earlier: do not simply believe — examine first. The contradiction appears when he later insists that scientific claims must be accepted without question, while still criticizing believers for doing the same with religious teaching.

Even within the scientific community, there is room for disagreement, revision, and debate — this is part of the scientific method itself. For example, Fred Hoyle publicly opposed the Big Bang theory when it first emerged, and many scientific ideas throughout history (such as Aristotle’s belief that spiders were insects) were later corrected. That does not mean science is unreliable — it means science grows through questioning, refinement, and humility. So when I encourage thoughtful examination rather than blind acceptance, I am not rejecting science — I am honoring the very spirit of it.

In short, the accusation that I “do not believe in science” misrepresents my position. I believe science is a valuable tool for understanding the natural world — but I also believe that both scientific and philosophical claims deserve thoughtful reflection. True dialogue — and true science — require openness, fairness, and honesty, not caricatures of one another’s beliefs.

7. Strawman Misrepresentation — “You Believe Without Evidence”

At another stage in our conversation, my friend alleged that I was claiming it is acceptable to believe without evidence, and he even presented a screenshot which he thought supported this accusation. However, when I reviewed the message, I realized that I had never stated — explicitly or implicitly — that faith means accepting beliefs without any evidence. What I actually did was ask a clarifying question:

“Is it wrong for scientists to believe in gravity or air, even though these things cannot be seen?”

My point was simple and reasonable: not everything invisible is automatically unreal. Earlier, my friend had argued that because God cannot be seen — and because science books never claim to have “seen God” — then belief in God lacks evidence. So I used gravity and air as examples to show that visibility alone is not the measure of truth.

And he even implicitly agreed: gravity itself cannot be seen, but it can be studied through its effects.

Yet from this, he somehow concluded that I was saying:

“It is okay to believe without evidence.”

That claim did not reflect what I said at all. It was a classic Strawman Fallacy — misrepresenting someone’s words so that the weaker version is easier to attack. My statement was not “evidence doesn’t matter,” but rather:

“Something can be real and supported by evidence, even if it cannot be physically seen.”

Christians do not claim that God is a physical object to be examined in a laboratory. Scripture itself teaches that God is Spirit (John 4:24) and that no one has seen God in His essence (John 1:18). So Christians have always understood that God’s existence is known not through direct physical observation, but through reason, history, experience, testimony, and the natural world — much like other realities that are known through their effects rather than by direct sight.

A Premature Conclusion Disguised as Logic

Later in the conversation, my friend also said:

“Maybe there is no God because there is no evidence yet.”

But the phrase “no evidence yet” already hides a conclusion. It assumes:

• that all evidence has already been considered,
• that only scientific measurement counts as evidence,
• and that every theist argument fails before it is examined.

That is not neutral reasoning — it is a conclusion before discussion.

A more honest and reasonable position would be:

“Let us examine the arguments and see what the evidence suggests.”

But to say in advance that there is “no evidence” — despite centuries of philosophical, historical, and experiential reasoning — is simply dismissive.

What I Actually Believe

Faith is not believing without evidence.
Faith is trust in what we have good reason to believe is true.

Christians see evidence in:

• the origin and order of the universe
• the fine-tuning of natural laws
• the reality of consciousness and moral truth
• historical testimony about Jesus
• personal spiritual experience

People may debate these — but they cannot say they do not exist.

So the statement that I teach “belief without evidence” does not represent my view — nor what I actually said. It was a misunderstanding turned into an accusation.

And that is exactly what a Strawman Fallacy is.

8. Appeal to Ignorance — “There Is No Evidence, Therefore God Does Not Exist”

My friend claims:

“There is no evidence for God — therefore God does not exist.”

This is a textbook Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance) when stated as certainty. Lack of proof does not equal disproof. For example:

• Not seeing gravity doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
• Not detecting life elsewhere doesn’t mean it does not exist.

A rational skeptic may say:

“I’m not convinced.”

That is reasonable.

But claiming certainty of non-existence solely because evidence is not accepted is logically excessive.

In philosophy:

• withholding belief = neutral skepticism
• claiming non-existence = knowledge claim

The second requires justification.

9. When the Heart Refuses Evidence

Christians believe faith includes spiritual perception — not just empirical testing. Scripture describes Pharaoh hardening his heart (Exodus). This does not prove atheists are wrong — but it illustrates:

sometimes the issue is not absence of evidence, but resistance to it.

I cite Pharaoh only as a narrative analogy, not as logical proof.

Believers testify that they do see evidence of God — in:

• creation
• moral truth
• transformed lives
• answered prayer
• historical testimony
• the resurrection of Jesus

Just because evidence is rejected does not mean it does not exist.

10. Respecting Each Other’s Starting Points

Everyone reasons from a starting foundation:

Atheists → naturalistic worldview
Christians → theistic worldview

Neither side should dismiss the other as irrational without fair consideration.

I agree that:

• atheists may honestly see no evidence
• believers honestly see abundant evidence

We should seek truth, not victory.

11. A Call to Fair Dialogue

I do not claim superiority.
I do not wish to insult my friend.
I respect his right to interpret the world differently.

But accuracy matters.

So when fallacy labels are misused to dismiss faith without engaging its reasoning, the discussion becomes defensive rather than honest.

Let us instead practice:

✔ humility
✔ fairness
✔ clarity
✔ respect

Truth does not fear examination.

Final Thought: Truth-Seeking with Humility and Respect

In the end, the goal of conversations about faith, philosophy, and truth should not be about “winning” an argument, but about sincerely seeking understanding. Logical fallacies are real and important to recognize — but they should be applied carefully and fairly. A genuine question, a personal testimony, or a clarification should not be mislabeled as a fallacy simply because we disagree with it.

It is also important to say clearly: the accusations made against my statements were ultimately not valid. Many of them misunderstood the intent of what I said — interpreting sincere questions or personal experiences as though they were formal arguments. Others involved misquoting or misrepresenting my words, then calling the distorted version “fallacious.” Because of these misunderstandings, the charges of fallacy do not actually stand and cannot be taken as legitimate objections.

At the same time, I fully acknowledge that none of us — including myself — are perfect reasoners. We are all capable of mistakes in thinking. That is why humility matters. My atheist friend believes there is no God; I believe there is strong reason and evidence to trust in God. But when someone insists, “there is no evidence,” while dismissing every piece of data, argument, or testimony simply because it supports theism, that position itself becomes vulnerable to skepticism. Like Pharaoh hardening his heart, it is possible to be confronted with evidence and yet choose not to see it. This is not said to condemn, but to illustrate that unbelief is not always the product of pure logic — sometimes it is also a matter of the will.

True dialogue requires fairness: we must judge arguments as they are, not as we imagine them to be. And we must remain open to evidence — whether it challenges atheism or Christianity. As a believer, I see powerful reasons to trust in the existence of God, many of which I have discussed elsewhere. Others may disagree — but disagreement alone does not equal rational superiority.

May our conversations be guided by honesty, patience, and respect — seeking truth not only with the mind, but with a sincere heart.