The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[Rational Agnostic]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. Why would an omnipotent god who wants a "relationship" with humans never talk to them directly and only speak through intermediaries? Why would he wait for missionaries to tell people about his existence instead of revealing himself directly to them? Why would he need humans to write his "word" for him? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

 

[`mud]

The fear that you might be right...........repeated laughing in the background

 

[QuestioningMind]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. Why would an omnipotent god who wants a "relationship" with humans never talk to them directly and only speak through intermediaries? Why would he wait for missionaries to tell people about his existence instead of revealing himself directly to them? Why would he need humans to write his "word" for him? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

Very well put. I've always said that if there is a creator god then this creator god is an absolutely terrible communicator. Even I as a fallible mortal knows that using the 'telephone' method for distributing an important message is a sure recipe for disaster.

 

[metis]

I don't think there's "The Best Argument Against the Existence of God" any more than there's "The Best Argument For the Existence of God".

IMO, both are well above our pay-grades. Therefore, if one believes there's a God(s), or if one believes there are no deities, it's just what they choose to believe, probably based on other factors.

 

[Rival]

Most people are not spiritually fit enough to accept G-d's presence. The Creator of everything in existence is beyond one's ability to comprehend or take. This is recorded in the Book of Exodus when the Israelites hear G-d speak and after the first 2 sayings they beg Moses to relate what G-d says instead because His very voice is too overpowering. One cannot just attain dreams, visions or prophecy like one acquires a new language. One has to be mentally and spiritually prepared. We notice that such figures as Noach, Abraham and Moses were all ahead in years before they heard G-d. In our words they were old men. We see right in the beginning in Genesis after the sin the man and woman are driven away and then they have to work. Then we also have to work at communication with G-d.

It seems that the atheist position does not or will not understand just how powerful G-d is and think it should be like communicating with any other being.

 

[Raw020]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. Why would an omnipotent god who wants a "relationship" with humans never talk to them directly and only speak through intermediaries? Why would he wait for missionaries to tell people about his existence instead of revealing himself directly to them? Why would he need humans to write his "word" for him? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

I assume that is your definition of god? We re are not God. We didn't create Him. He created us. So He says whom we are and tells us whom He is. We can however observe His creations and word to gain insight into His personality. But for Him, He doesn't need to do that. He made us.

If He approaches people through His servants, He did no wrong. That does not mean that He cannot do it. If He inspires people to write His word, He did no wrong, it does not mean He cannot do it on His own. What then can that teach us about God? He loves delegating authority and assignments. He is sincere and honest, that's why He trusts others too.

 

[Piculet]

A lot of people disobeyed God and rejected Him despite having clear proof of His existence. Some people simply won't believe. The excuse that 'there is no evidence' is just that: an excuse.

 

[epronovost]

It seems that the atheist position does not or will not understand just how powerful G-d is and think it should be like communicating with any other being.

Your entire argument boils down to "if you believed in God you would believe in God". You do not present any sort of convincing mechanism there.

 

[Piculet]

He is sincere and honest, that's why He trusts others too.

Now you're attributing human characteristics to God. God knows all things. He isn't limited by our psychological inclinations.

 

[Rival]

Your entire argument boils down to "if you believed in God you would believe in God". You do not present any sort of convincing mechanism there.

I'm not trying to make an argument for G-d's existence.

 

[sun rise]

The OP is very Christian or perhaps Judeo-Christian centered. In Islam there are not supposed to be priests etc. Dharmic religions have teachers (gurus) who, for those that are ready and have found a true teacher, walk alongside aspirants offering what they have to offer. And this is present in Judaism as well and probably Christianity. These two quotes illustrate this:

"A true leader does not seek followers, he wants to teach others how to be leaders. He does not want control, he wants the truth. He does not impose his leadership on others, nor does he take away anyone's autonomy. He inspires by love, not coercion. When it comes time to take credit, he makes himself invisible; but he is the first to arrive at the time of need, and he will never shrink away in fear. He is so passionate about your welfare that when you consult him for guidance, it is like coming face to face with yourself for the first time." Rebbe Menachem M Schneerson

"There are more fake gurus and false teachers in this world than the number of stars in the visible universe. Don’t confuse power-driven, self-centered people with true mentors. A genuine spiritual master will not direct your attention to himself or herself and will not expect absolute obedience or utter admiration from you, but instead will help you to appreciate and admire your inner self. True mentors are as transparent as glass. They let the light of G-d pass through them." Shams of Tabriz

 

[epronovost]

What then can that teach us about God? He loves delegating authority and assignments. He is sincere and honest, that's why He trusts others too.

That would aslo make him rather lazy and naive. It would also make him rather uncarring since he doesn't seem to understand human psychology and political history or doesn't care to understand it.

 

[epronovost]

I'm not trying to make an argument for G-d's existence.

Indeed but you were attempting to provide an argument to "solve" the problem of divine hiddenness and your argument is pretty much a failure at that in my opinion.

 

[Rival]

Indeed but you were attempting to provide an argument to "solve" the problem of divine hiddenness and your argument is pretty much a failure at that in my opinion.

Ok.

 

[epronovost]

The OP is very Christian or perhaps Judeo-Christian centered. In Islam there are not supposed to be priests etc. Dharmic religions have teachers (gurus) who, for those that are ready and have found a true teacher, walk alongside aspirants offering what they have to offer. And this is present in Judaism as well and probably Christianity. These two quotes illustrate this:

"A true leader does not seek followers, he wants to teach others how to be leaders. He does not want control, he wants the truth. He does not impose his leadership on others, nor does he take away anyone's autonomy. He inspires by love, not coercion. When it comes time to take credit, he makes himself invisible; but he is the first to arrive at the time of need, and he will never shrink away in fear. He is so passionate about your welfare that when you consult him for guidance, it is like coming face to face with yourself for the first time." Rebbe Menachem M Schneerson

"There are more fake gurus and false teachers in this world than the number of stars in the visible universe. Don’t confuse power-driven, self-centered people with true mentors. A genuine spiritual master will not direct your attention to himself or herself and will not expect absolute obedience or utter admiration from you, but instead will help you to appreciate and admire your inner self. True mentors are as transparent as glass. They let the light of G-d pass through them." Shams of Tabriz

Functionnally, this is pretty much a distinction without much difference. In that case, "teachers" are still considered authorities when it comes to spirituality. When teachers disagree amongst themselves, one of the most common reaction is to declare those they disagree with as heretics of some variety or untrue. The arguments in support of this "heresy" can vary in strength very widely.

 

[exchemist]

A lot of people disobeyed God and rejected Him despite having clear proof of His existence. Some people simply won't believe. The excuse that 'there is no evidence' is just that: an excuse.

Proof? What proof do you have in mind?

I have always understood that the existence or otherwise of God is one of the best-rehearsed propositions that is impossible to prove either way.

 

[stvdv]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. Why would an omnipotent god who wants a "relationship" with humans never talk to them directly and only speak through intermediaries? Why would he wait for missionaries to tell people about his existence instead of revealing himself directly to them? Why would he need humans to write his "word" for him? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

IMO:
You put the facts upside down.

Men wrote these things in the Bible and started to evangelize this. Even if they claim it was God inspired, God didn't write it. Period.
Blaming God for this is "imposing something on God"; why do (ex)Christians keep on imposing on others (now even imposing on God)?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The OP is very Christian or perhaps Judeo-Christian centered. In Islam there are not supposed to be priests etc. Dharmic religions have teachers (gurus) who, for those that are ready and have found a true teacher, walk alongside aspirants offering what they have to offer. And this is present in Judaism as well and probably Christianity. These two quotes illustrate this:

"A true leader does not seek followers, he wants to teach others how to be leaders. He does not want control, he wants the truth. He does not impose his leadership on others, nor does he take away anyone's autonomy. He inspires by love, not coercion. When it comes time to take credit, he makes himself invisible; but he is the first to arrive at the time of need, and he will never shrink away in fear. He is so passionate about your welfare that when you consult him for guidance, it is like coming face to face with yourself for the first time." Rebbe Menachem M Schneerson

"There are more fake gurus and false teachers in this world than the number of stars in the visible universe. Don’t confuse power-driven, self-centered people with true mentors. A genuine spiritual master will not direct your attention to himself or herself and will not expect absolute obedience or utter admiration from you, but instead will help you to appreciate and admire your inner self. True mentors are as transparent as glass. They let the light of G-d pass through them." Shams of Tabriz

Maybe a better question would be how do Muslims and Jews know God exists. Since Christianity has mediums, they'd be the wrong people to ask this question to.

(I did ask a Muslim once. She just pointed to the quran and didn't continue the conversation). Maybe the shift should be at those who have direct knowledge of God rather than experienced through mediums and prophets.

Which makes me ask too is where does Muhammad play in a Muslims experience with God

 

[Piculet]

(I did ask a Muslim once. She just pointed to the quran and didn't continue the conversation).

She was very wise. So did you look at the Quran?

 

[Nakosis]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. Why would an omnipotent god who wants a "relationship" with humans never talk to them directly and only speak through intermediaries? Why would he wait for missionaries to tell people about his existence instead of revealing himself directly to them? Why would he need humans to write his "word" for him? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

Best argument against accepting any particular concept of belief in God...

That they all rely on anecdotal experiences of God. Either your own or someone else's. Also, the fact that there is no necessary consistency between these experiences. There's contrived consistency, like between the OT and NT in the Bible. Basically there is no authority on God. No one with any compelling reason to accept the knowledge they claim comes from God.