4 Weird Questions That Should Not Make You an Atheist

Mike Winger introduces a panel response to Genetically Modified Skeptic's video "4 Questions That Could Make You an Atheist," joined by Braxton Hunter, Cameron Bertuzzi, and John McCrae.

Introduction — response to Genetically Modified Skeptic

Drew's Question 1: Why did God communicate through literature? Literature demands interpretation, leading to contradictory sects and suffering (e.g., JW blood transfusions). If God couldn't do better, he's not omnipotent; if he didn't know, not omniscient; if he didn't care, not omni-benevolent.

Presenting Drew's argument — literature and the problem of evil

Braxton responds: even if Drew's point succeeded, it wouldn't lead to atheism — at most it would adjust your concept of God. The video's title ("make you an atheist") overstates the stakes. Drew's argument mirrors Epicurus' logical argument from evil, which is too ambitious.

Response to Q1 — Drew's argument doesn't lead to atheism

Fourth option: written literature is the BEST medium for communicating detailed, specific information that can be preserved, studied in community, and shared worldwide. Other communication methods (prophets, dreams, miracles) are either also subject to interpretation, subjective, or lack specificity.

Response to Q1 — written text as optimal communication

John McCrae adds: our sin nature explains interpretive divergence — we read preferences into Scripture. The Bible calls us to strive for truth (narrow gate), which makes the relationship with Christ richer. Drew's question is really just the problem of evil focused on one aspect.

Additional response to Q1 — sin nature and striving

Cameron Bertuzzi identifies that Drew conflates suffering with unjustified suffering. The real burden is showing the suffering is unjustified, which Drew assumes but doesn't argue. Questions are not arguments — you must defend premises, not just state conclusions.

Additional response to Q1 — unjustified vs justified suffering

The JW blood transfusion example actually comes from Watchtower proclamations, not biblical interpretation. John notes the Bible's manuscript tradition makes it more reliable than modern media like video. Even supernatural direct knowledge could still be questioned by skeptics.

Additional response to Q1 — JW example and textual reliability

Drew's Question 2: Shouldn't you worship the cruelest God imaginable? If Pascal's wager is about maximizing reward and minimizing punishment, inventing a maximally cruel God improves the wager by creating a true dichotomy.

Presenting Drew's argument — Pascal's wager and cruelest God

Mike responds with three problems: (1) Drew misrepresents Pascal's wager as "believe whatever promises the most" — Pascal actually included evidential evaluation; (2) modern proponents like Michael Rota and Liz Jackson pair evidence with the wager; (3) Pascal's wager is decision theory, not blind gambling.

Response to Q2 — Pascal's wager is misrepresented

Drew's false dichotomy objection fails because Pascal's wager can be constructed to meet people where they are. If someone is between Christianity and atheism specifically, it's not a false dichotomy — it's their actual situation. Drew also inadvertently grants theism when proposing alternative gods.

Response to Q2 — false dichotomy and evidential grounding

Drew's arbitrary cruel God is defeated by evidence: Christianity has historical verification, prophecy, testimony, and wasn't made up on the spot. A maximally cruel God would send everyone to hell with no heaven, giving no reason to worship. This is the "Pascal's mugger" objection, already addressed in literature.

Response to Q2 — arbitrary claims vs evidenced claims

Cameron adds: Michael Rota's avarice objection response — the wager need not be self-interested; one might commit to God out of desire to avoid disappointing God, to grow morally, or out of moral duty. Rota's drowning child analogy: even at 50/50, the stakes justify commitment.

Additional response to Q2 — avarice objection and drowning child analogy

Drew's Question 3: Why did God create animals with pain receptors? John McCrae responds: (1) animals don't experience pain "exactly the same" as humans — they lack equivalent emotional/psychological pain; (2) pain is necessary for survival; (3) "psychological trauma" in animals is overstated (sloth bear eating its own cubs, chimps killing young).

Response to Q3 — animal pain

Drew claims God demanded animal sacrifice because he enjoyed it. John corrects: OT sacrifice was for atonement, an act of mercy, not divine enjoyment. Genesis 1:29-30 shows God originally created a vegetarian food chain — the current system results from the Fall. Drew ignores that Christianity's purpose isn't a pain-free temporal life.

Response to Q3 — sacrifice and the Fall

Drew claims religious people invented doctrines to morally justify killing animals. John turns this around: on Drew's evolutionary morality, survival-promoting beliefs ARE morality — so religion doing this would be moral by his own framework. Also, most non-religious people eat meat too, so religion isn't the explanation.

Response to Q3 — evolutionary morality is self-defeating

Christianity would be the worst survival-promoting religion if it were invented for that purpose — it teaches loving enemies, not retaliating, turning the other cheek. Early Christians were pacifists for 300 years. This contradicts the "made up for survival" hypothesis.

Response to Q3 — Christianity is anti-survival by design

Cameron and Mike discuss animal suffering as a serious philosophical problem, but note: (1) atheism offers no solution to suffering at all, (2) Christianity promises resolution (Isaiah 11 — wolf lies down with lamb), (3) Stephen Wykstra's no-see-um principle: we wouldn't expect to perceive overarching goods from specific instances of suffering.

Animal suffering — atheism vs Christianity

Drew's Question 4: If God knows who will choose him, why not only create those people and skip earthly suffering? If free will is the answer, that implies heaven lacks free will (since there's no suffering there), making earth better than heaven.

Presenting Drew's argument — why create the non-elect?

Cameron responds: 3 of 4 questions are really just versions of the problem of evil. Questions are not arguments — they require structured premises and conclusions. Cameron identifies three goods requiring earthly existence before heaven.

Response to Q4 — questions aren't arguments

Good #1: Freely choosing to enter a loving relationship with God is a great good — a love potion analogy shows forced love isn't real love. Good #2: Alvin Plantinga's supralapsarianism theodicy — the Incarnation and atonement (Christ dying for those who hate him) is among the greatest conceivable acts of love, only possible in a world with sin.

Response to Q4 — goods requiring earth (love and atonement)

Good #3: Soul-building theodicy — suffering provides opportunities to develop character virtues (sacrifice, courage, compassion, forgiveness). Good #4: Robin Collins' connection-building theodicy — virtuous responses to evil create valuable relationships that grow infinitely over time.

Response to Q4 — soul-building and connection-building

Drew repeatedly says "there's another option: God isn't real" — but easy explanations aren't necessarily good explanations. The tri-omni concept doesn't "fall apart under momentary consideration" — the problem requires more than momentary consideration.

Response to Q4 — easy vs good explanations

Mike's closing: Drew's journey to atheism appears to involve accumulating unanswered tough questions — a shallow understanding of Christianity where questions pile up without pursuing answers. Christianity shows itself to be true; questions may make you an atheist, but answers will make you a Christian.

Closing — questions vs answers

The panelists stress that responses to atheist content are meant to open conversation, not tear people down. YouTube is an uncharted mission field. Apologists should collaborate rather than compete.

Closing — collaborative apologetics