The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[Heyo]

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 haven't personally seen any virus. It's only people (scientists and doctors) that said that they exist. So I think your argument isn't the best.
A better argument is that all those people who believe in gods can't agree about anything about their gods. That is the difference to scientists. They overwhelmingly agree that viruses exist and when they describe them they agree on the properties.

 

[1213]

... 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. ...

And you think there is no other reason than He has to? Is it not possible that this is the best way?

I think the problem is really not the way, but that some people just don’t want to hear. If the message is the same as in the Bible, would it be better, if it would be said directly to you? Would you then become righteous and love others as yourself?

However, there is more direct way, the Holy Spirit:

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
Luke 11:13

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.
John 14:26

When the Counselor [Greek Parakletos: Counselor, Helper, Advocate, Intercessor, and Comfortor.] has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 15:26

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

But, Spirit of Truth, not many like to hear the truth.

 

[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

I know an even more convincing argument against the existence of God

The Bible claims that going against God's command will send you to Hell (rape and stuff)
The Pope, Bishops and Kardinals know about these rules and consequences

And these so called Christians (not fools, some were even priests or Bishop) were raping kids (in this century, not talking about Middle Ages)

That to me is proof, that Hell does not exists. They created this Hell-fear to control the masses
But they don't believe in it, otherwise they would not rape children, knowing they will go to hell

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

I read some of it. Another Muslim invited me to his mosque and gave me an English/Arabic version. It's been over ten years so I don't have it. It's a better read than the Bible but I live in a Bible oriented country so it would be nice to know how jews and Muslims view God's existence. Is it dependent on tradition, scripture, prophets, or is there a connection with God and these three things are commentary to build a relationship but not the source of?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I haven't personally seen any virus. It's only people (scientists and doctors) that said that they exist. So I think your argument isn't the best.
A better argument is that all those people who believe in gods can't agree about anything about their gods. That is the difference to scientists. They overwhelmingly agree that viruses exist and when they describe them they agree on the properties.

Viruses can't be "seen" but their direct effects are obvious. So the analogy doesn't work as far as I can tell.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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.

When I was getting back into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I guess there's two ways to look at it.

If you don't believe in God, then still prophets can come up with good advice.
If you do believe in God, they can interpret scripture for the times so you know what to focus on. They are a link between you and the divine because they help you hold onto Him when you're aren't as capable as them.

That second one was taught to me by the missionaries before I rejoined.

 

[Heyo]

Viruses can't be "seen" but their direct effects are obvious. So the analogy doesn't work as far as I can tell.

That's a Corona virus. Not a drawing, a real picture taken with an electron microscop.
But that's just an example. There are many things I haven't seen, from Australia to Charon. People tell me they exist and I believe them because they are in accord about its existence and its features.

 

[Yerda]

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.

This doesn't seem to be evidence either way. Not saying those aren't good questions, they are, but the existence of middlemen doesn't really push us in one direction or the other concerning the existence of God, imo.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

Would you say He has power enough to make communication with Him just like communicating with any other being? If He doesn't have such power, then do you think He is confused as to why there are people who simply do not believe in Him? Or do you think He understands full well that with the tools He gave us, our inability to relate to Him on a personal level would almost assuredly lead to some people not accepting His existence as fact?

 

[epronovost]

They created this Hell-fear to control the masses
But they don't believe in it, otherwise they would not rape children, knowing they will go to hell

That's a profoundly naive and simplistic view of human behavior as if we were creatures of pure reason and logic a 100% of the time.

 

[George-ananda]

I wish these arguments would discuss which God concept is being referred to.

I happen to believe God is our internal consciousness. By quieting the mind we can find love and peace that is God within us without any human intermediaries.

 

[stvdv]

That's a profoundly naive and simplistic view of human behavior as if we were creatures of pure reason and logic a 100% of the time.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[epronovost]

Thank you for your opinion.

By pure curiosity. What will you do of it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

You forgot to mention demonstrably prone to increasing error the further the "message" is spread.

 

[stvdv]

By pure curiosity. What will you do of it?

When I was writing my reply, I got the thought "I could add that some people are not able to control this urge/desire", but then I thought "that is obvious, people will understand". When I share a mathematical concept, I also do not explain the basics every time; e.g. 1+1=2.

 

[epronovost]

When I was writing my reply, I got the thought "I could add that some people are not able to control this urge/desire", but then I thought "that is obvious, people will understand". When I share a mathematical concept, I also do not explain the basics every time; e.g. 1+1=2.

Except this admitting such exception undermined the premise of your argument (AKA that hell didn't exist else people who profess belief in it wouldn't do bad things). It also doesn't include rationalisation of otherwise "bad action" by the perpetrator of said bad actions. That too undermines your premise. How does this will affect your argument since these facts can effectively disprove your premise?

 

[Piculet]

but I live in a Bible oriented country so it would be nice to know how jews and Muslims view God's existence. Is it dependent on tradition, scripture, prophets, or is there a connection with God and these three things are commentary to build a relationship but not the source of?

I don't quite understand the question and am not necessarily the best to answer it anyway, but what comes to mind is the claim of some Christians that Muslims 'don't have a personal God'. Personally, I don't like the term personal God or maybe I just don't know what it means, but from the way they talk about it, I would say Muslims do have a personal God in the similar manner the Christians do. The strict rules of Islam are meant to bring us closer to God and keep us close to God. The tradition and the scripture are definitely absolutely essential, however.

 

[sun rise]

Maybe a better question would be how do Muslims and Jews know God exists

I don't think which religion matters. Some believe purely on faith. Some believe because the world is meaningless without God. Some believe because they've met someone who radiates divinity. Some because of experiences they've had.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think which religion matters. Some believe purely on faith. Some believe because the world is meaningless without God. Some believe because they've met someone who radiates divinity. Some because of experiences they've had.

I actually think it does, though. Jews and Muslims don't believe jesus is god so their perspective of god and relationship would be defined different than that of a a christian. Hindus version of god doesn't include human sacrifice so their view of how love, compassion, and practice define their god would be different-therefore the relationship and interpretations of it.

I heard it said that Jews and Muslims have similar views of god (the monotheist view) as opposed to christians with whom vary in the divinity of christ whether a perfect medium or god himself.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That's a profoundly naive and simplistic view of human behavior as if we were creatures of pure reason and logic a 100% of the time.

I agree it's a bit naive, however, I think it may be true that many priests and pastors don't actually believe in God. Religion is a great money-making opportunity and all it takes is a little charisma and possibly a story about getting "saved."