Helen De Cruz, a philosopher of religion, has conducted a survey of over 800 fellow philosophers, to see how well they rate various arguments for theism and atheism. The following charts show the average scores from each group.
Overall, the results show each side thinks most of their arguments are strong, while the other sides arguments are weak.
There is one exception to this: the problem of evil. Both sides agree that the problem of evil is a somewhat strong argument for atheism.
This is surprising because many non-philosophers often act as though it’s an non-issue or easy to solve.
Here is something really challenging to wrap our minds around (this in no way proves/disproves theism/atheism, but its an interesting thought exercise)
Where did God come from? Why does he exist? How can it be that something as incredibly sophisticated as an intelligent mind “just exists” without a creator, a cause, or an origin story? If your mind didn’t have a body, do you think its possible that your intelligent mind could “just exist” without a creator? Then how can Gods intelligent mind, which is superior to yours, “just exist” without a creator?
If its possible that a non-physical intelligent mind can “just exist” as a brute fact, is it possible that the non-physical laws of physics “just exist” without a creator? Why should a non-physical person be more likely than a non-physical law?
For the philosophically erudite, since God is defined as a metaphysically necessary thing, is it possible that the laws of physics are a necessary thing? Why should a non-physical person be more likely than a non-physical law?