The main Atheist and straw man of the film is college philosophy Professor Radisson, played by Kevin Sorbo, whose career ironically peaked with his portrayal of Greek demigod Hercules. Professor Radisson is the film's main antagonist, who sets everything into motion by asking his class to admit that God is Dead so they can skip theological discussions for the semester. When devout Christian and avid Newsboys fan Josh refuses, he's threatened with a failing grade unless he concedes to the demand or proves God's existence.
This main premise of the film, meant to embody the mythical boogeyman of the anti-Christian left-wing collegiate intelligentsia, is in and of itself completely ludicrous. The idea that a Philosophy professor would threaten to fail a student for not denying his own religious faith, and be notorious enough for doing so that class registrars are motivated to warn crucifix-laden students to switch classes, already stretches the limits of willful disbelief. That a philosophy professor would then demand a student unequivocally prove anything, let alone the existence of God, demonstrates an overall lack of understanding of philosophy. Radisson's thinly-veiled hostility towards Josh's faith becomes open hostility when he later physically confronts Josh and threatens to prevent him from ever getting a law degree (um... okay...) if he keeps trying to embarrass him in front of his students, an act that would most likely impact one's teaching career, God or no God.
Granted, the argument could be made that Radisson is not meant to represent all philosophy professors, just a bad one. If that were the case, however, there would be no need to include the dinner party scene at Radisson's home in which a collection of fellow philosophy professors not only support his Prove God or Fail challenge to his student, but also join him in openly ridiculing his young Christian girlfriend for being Christian and storing wine in her trunk. But there is, and the purpose of this is to show that we are not just dealing with one twisted professor, but a vast conspiracy of institutionalized anti-Christian aggression.
But intellectual snobbery isn't enough for the film, which needs to invoke a monumental David and Goliath battle between the faithful and those angry Atheists, so Josh is also pitted against his girlfriend of six years, who demands that he capitulate to Radisson's demands because flunking a humanities elective will jeopardize his future law degree and their entire future together. When he ignores her ultimatum and takes on the task of proving God's existence to a Freshman philosophy class, she immediately breaks up with him - and right after he got her tickets to see the Newsboys for an anniversary gift. This is probably the most realistic part of the film, as I can easily recall the number of girlfriends I've lost because I wouldn't deny the existence of a supreme being in exchange for course credits. We never meet Josh's parents, but he does mention briefly in a couple of asides that they want him to deny God as well. So much for parental guidance.
Despite all of these side stories, the main focus of the film is obviously the classroom debate between Radisson and Josh, and while it would be a mistake to get into a point-by-point examination of the arguments of either side, there are a couple of things worth mentioning. First, considering that Radisson starts the class reading a long list of Atheist philosophers, the bulk of the debate involves scientific arguments involving the Big Bang and Evolution, and very little time is spent examining the works or arguments of philosophers that actually do argue for the existence of God, of which there are many. This leads me to believe that the screenwriters themselves have spent more time arguing with people attempting to disprove God with science than they have actually discussing theological philosophy with actual philosophers. On a side note, I would argue that the phenomenal graphics Josh employs during his lectures are a clear sign that he should abandon his pre-law classes and major and computer programming or digital animation.
The other big flaw in the entire Is God Dead debate is that Josh "proves" that God Isn't Dead to his classmates by exposing Radisson's flawed logic using his own flawed logic. Hinging on the belief that all Atheists actual do believe in God but just deny his existence to be hip smarty-pants, Josh tricks Radisson into admitting that he hates God (because his mother died when he was ten), and then stumps him with "How can you hate somebody who doesn't exist?" Mike drop, right? Well, no... Getting the professor to admit that he believes God exists by exposing his hatred of him might expose a flaw in his own personal belief system, but his admitted belief in God's existence doesn't actually prove God's existence any more than his belief that God doesn't exist proves that God doesn't exist. The idea that Josh tricking Radisson prove the existence of God is as ludicrous as the very idea of attempting to "prove" God's existence. Josh starts his lectures by stating that you can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that God doesn't exist, and he's absolutely correct. That's what philosophy is all about, examining things that defy exact definition. But if Josh had stopped at his extremely logical introduction, the film couldn't have spent the remainder of its two hours focusing on it's true argument, which is that all Atheists are big bullies who live to persecute Christians and force them to deny their faith.
The most disingenuous aspect of God's Not Dead is that it sets up the premise that a student must defend God's existence to an elite intellectual atheist bully, set's it up so that he wins, and that's not enough. No, God's Not Dead feels the need to take the David and Goliath story one step forward and actually demonstrate God's existence through divine intervention. Because, you know, God has a plan. In this case, God's plan is to thwart Reverend Dave's attempts to leave town for Disney World by killing the starter in every car he and his missionary friend get into for the duration of the film. This is because God wants Reverend Dave to be on the scene when Radisson, in a moment of wavering atheism after reading his mother's dying letter to him (she mentions God a lot), impulsively runs to a nearby Newsboys concert only to be hit by a speeding car in the rain, so that Reverend Dave can save Radisson's immortal soul by convincing him to accept Christ into his life before he succumbs to his wounds. An ending right out of a Jack Chick religious tract, it raises a very logical question that kind, while not proving Radisson's initial point, at least justifies his anti-theistic leanings: If God was so concerned about Radisson getting a chance to repent before dying, why didn't he break the starter on the hit-and-run driver's car that night and give Radisson the rest of his natural life to come over from the dark side, instead of disabling multiple rental cars over the course of a week just so Reverend Dave could squeeze a deathbed confession out of him in the middle of a crowded intersection during a torrential downpour.
So, am I reviewing the message or the film? Again, I don't think one can exist without the other. Remove the giant fighting robots from Transformers, and all you get is 144 minutes of Shia LeBeouf trying to nail Megan Fox. Remove the message from God's Not Dead, and all you'd be left with is two hours of Reverend Dave being nice to people and having car trouble. Beyond that, the film's declared topic is nothing more than false platform created to support and obscure its message that Christian persecution is anybody that doesn't like the Newsboys, and that the quickest road to salvation is a horrible death and/or Reverend Dave.