Twenty Questions Atheists Struggle To Answer

At his Christian Medical Comment blog, Peter Saunders introduces himself as the CEO of  the Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members.

Back in 2012 he compiled a list of Twenty Questions Atheists Struggle To Answer

1.What caused the universe to exist?
2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
3.Why is the universe rational?
4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?
5.Where did the genetic code come from?
6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
7.How do we account for the origin of 116 distinct language families?
8.Why did cities suddenly appear all over the world between 3,000 and 1,000BC?
9.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?
10.How do we account for self-awareness?
11.How is free will possible in a material universe?
12.How do we account for conscience?
13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?
14.Why does suffering matter?
15.Why do human beings matter?
16.Why care about justice?
17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?
18.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?
19.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?
20.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church?

Many atheists accepted the challenge and Saunders provides links to some of the responses here. I especially liked the comprehensive answers provided by Richard Carrier.

As for myself? I struggled! For most of those questions my answer would have to be, "I don't know."

And that's when Saunders pounces.

Despite denials, he is actually using a "god of the gaps" argument. He is asking difficult questions and whenever an atheist fails to provide an answer he squeezes his god into that knowledge gap: "You don't know, therefore god did it."

Saunders also uses the fallacy of the false dichotomy. He claims that his conclusion (that god exists) is one of only two possible options when, in fact, there are other possibilities. No matter what sort of answer the atheists gives him, Saunders casually declares that it is unsatisfactory and then goes on to claim his preferred conclusion (god did it) must be embraced because there is no other option.

[It would be like me saying that if your car is not red then it must be green. It is not an either/or situation. Your car could be blue, or white, or any other color that is neither red nor green - or you might not even own a car.]

Now check out Saunders' answers to the first few questions. In each case he rejects the scientific explanation as unlikely and then declares that there is only one option left - god did it!


1.What caused the universe to exist?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

It is therefore not unreasonable to believe in the existence of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal Creator of the universe.

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

It seems therefore not impossible that intelligent design might account for them.

3.Why is the universe rational?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

Does the intrinsic rationality of the universe prove the existence of God? No. But it is fully consistent with theism.

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

Thus far the mechanism by which this might have happened has proved insoluble, but it shouts ‘design’.

5.Where did the genetic code come from?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

The genetic code, like language, gives the appearance of being the product of an intelligent mind. 

6. How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

The organised complexity of these most simple of organisms throws into relief the immensity of the task facing naturalistic explanations of how life originated.

There is something else as well.

Saunders has no real interest in the answers an atheist may give to any of these questions. He is not trying to gain knowledge; he is simply trying to avoid the burden of proof:

As soon as he declares that god exists it is incumbent upon him to produce some evidence for god's existence - but he has none! So he shifts the burden of proof by asking the atheist to answer a completely different set of questions. As long as the atheist is talking about the evolution of "enzyme chains" (or whatever) Saunders is saved the bother of producing proof that god exists - and that is the sole point of the exercise; to avoid the burden of proof.