Found on in the comments section of a Theoretical Bullshit (♥) video:
it is a weak argument, there are so many way to refute it. First, there is an assumption that people would accept God’s existence if God did X, which is silly. have they met a human lately? I mean more people think that the moon landings were staged at a CBS studio and that Bush blew up the towers than that reject the existence for God. The VAST majority of humans accept a Divine reality so whatever God is doing he has convince most people that He exists in some fashion
This is one of the most bizarre “arguments” I’ve ever come across. Where do you even start?
What about with facts?
The most reliable poll on this is probably Gallup, which shows that about 90% of Americans “do not believe the U.S. government staged or faked the Apollo moon landing”. This same poll points to 6% (+/-3) of Americans believing that it was definitely faked. It’s a bit old, but it’s good enough for purposes. That number is unlikely to change too dramatically.
Now, how you want to define someone who rejects God gets complicated. I mean, do you define it as rejecting an explicitly Christian God? Or do we go so far as to count outright atheists? Then do we want to restrict it to Americans or send it worldwide, as there’s no reason a “Divine reality” would have national borders? If we’re talking non-Christians worldwide, then two-thirds clearly haven’t been convinced of the specifically Christian God. If you want to roll it all the way to Americans who explicitly call themselves atheists (and there are good reasons not to do this), then you might just be able to say more people think the moon landings were faked than are non-believers.
Now what about an argument from popularity?
The problem with arguing from popularity is that popular support has zero correlation with what is real. Zero. It’s not an indicator that something is true – but by the same token it’s not an indicator that something isn’t true. What we can say for certain, though, is that if there is a Divine reality trying to reveal itself to people, and popular support is (as an exception) the only way to go about measuring how well that reality is being revealed, then it’s not being revealed very well. Consider the fact that there are rounds of voting for the Pope, for instance.
At least in the case of non-belief in conspiracy theories, there’s a majority opinion that is the same. 90%+ of the population think “we landed on the moon, there’s no conspiracy you idiots”. Contrast to the conspiracy itself, where there’s actually a massive range of disagreement that ranges from the relatively innocuous to the outright bizarre. If there’s any indicator of bullshit to be found from popular opinion, it should be the diversity of beliefs.
Or what about the irony?
If you’re going to say that people are stupid, and so will accept something on flimsy evidence, you really don’t want to use this as a defence of your own idea. It basically sets up the simple rebuttal that, by your own argument, people will accept any old gibberish as evidence and so we can safely ignore what people believe as an indicator of truth.”People are stupid and will believe anything, people believe in God…”
I mean, really, who thinks this is any sort of argument for or against anything? Oh, YouTube comments… yeah, that explains it.