By Caillin (St. Petersburg)
Initially I was ecstatic to see a movie about a professor and student debating the existence of God. I figured the movie would be filled with logistical arguments back and forth between the professor and student using science, philosophy, and basic reasoning. Unfortunately, I was mistaken.
Rather than using arguments following premises or inductive reasoning, it seemed the movie’s main argument was, “non-Christians are really mean.” There was so much potential for a movie supposed to contain scholarly debate on one of the most known questions of the world: the existence (or not) of God. The movie did contain approximately four to five minutes of factual arguments, but even that contained primarily arguments from the Christian perspective and almost no rebuttal from the opposing side. But rather than sticking with logistical debate tactics, the movie stuck to making atheists and Muslims look like heartless @$$h0lez.
One example of how God’s Not Dead portrayed these non-Christians is by having the main atheist, besides the professor, dump his girlfriend as soon as he finds out she has cancer. His excuse was “she had to deal with personal stuff.” Not only is this completely unrealistic, but also, considering Christians made the movie, further validates most peoples’ view of Christians as being insanely judgmental.
To be fair, the movie did mention a few logistical arguments like the Kalam argument and refute quotes from well-known atheist philosophers like Charles Dawkins. However, the couple minutes of logistical arguments led up to the lead argument that since the professor claims to hate God, he must exist. By that “logic” Santa Claus will exist as long as someone hates him.
Personally I believe in God. I also think it is important for Christians to know why they believe in the existence of God and be able to support that. Unfortunately, God’s Not Dead did not give valid evidence towards Christianity but rather gave non-Christians good reasons to not become a Christian.