This post is about God, but of course, it isn't really about God, but about a particular pattern in general.
We're pretty much all in agreement that God doesn't exist.
This is correct or at least let's say it is for the purposes of this post. However, this also poses a trap.
Suppose there are forty arguments for God. Even if we know definitely for a fact that God doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that all of these forty arguments are wrong.
It would if all of these arguments claimed to definitely prove that he exists, but not if some of these arguments only claim he is more likely to exist than not or that he isn't as unlikely as we might think.
In fact, it'd actually be suspicious if all forty of these arguments came out against God. Surely we should expect the advantage to belong to the deists in at least one or two?
But since we have very good reasons to believe God doesn't exist and someone presents us with those arguments, surely we'll assume that they have to be wrong. And so we'll search very hard, until we find something that is plausibly an error or at least more plausible than God and talk ourselves into believing it.
And once we've introduced that first error, we've opened up the door for more.