I found the following on Capturing Christianity’s channel:
One of our Bereans (supporters of the ministry) said this recently and I’m having a hard time disagreeing: “The best arguments for Theism are the ones that online atheists hate the most.”
Reading this immediately brings to mind something I hear a lot from online Christians: “You don’t believe because you want to sin.” As if belief is a choice, and that somehow not believing changes reality. The implication of this is that atheist hate the “best” arguments because they somehow show that God is real, and atheists hate them arguments because they show us how wrong we are.
The problem is that the beliefs of atheists shouldn’t be considered a reliable indicator of truth. The appeal to [un]popularity is just as fallacious as the appeal to popularity. Even if every single atheist hates a particular argument for God, it doesn’t make the argument good, or even sound. Bad arguments, even popular ones, are still bad arguments, regardless of what a segment of the population believes.
Whenever I come across an argument for God I inevitably find that there are some significant problems, usually some kind of god of the gaps. I end up hating the arguments not because thee argument is bad, but because those who keep trot them out refuse to listen to the criticisms that have been brought forward. Having to explain that a bad argument has significant problems, and doesn’t do what they think it does, gets frustrating.
If I had to pick the argument I hate the most it would almost certainly be the Kalam. It’s probably one of the most popular arguments, and one I see too much. As an argument it doesn’t even have God in the conclusion (so it’s not actually an argument for God on its own), and I’m far from convinced that either of the premises are actually sound. This doesn’t stop theists from using this argument as their go-to when they want to try to convince me that their particular God exists.
Frankly, the best argument for theism (it would only take one) would be the one this is valid in structure, where the premises can all be demonstrated to be sound, and where “[particular] God exists” is the conclusion. Until that argument comes along, I’m going to say that theists have utterly failed to meet their burden of proof.