The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[epronovost]

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."

There has been studies on "non-believer" priests. Most of them got into the priesthood as believers, but lost their faith over time for a variety of reasons and remained priests for economical reasons (it's a job afterall) and for fear of judgement and rejection from their community. Most priests or pastors don't live in oppulance and thus it doesn't attract scammers all that much with some exception like televangelists, mega-church pastors and sect leaders.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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.

Well... this wouldn't necessarily disprove a God of a certain religion, since maybe God did actually speak to an intermediary because he felt like it. It would just mean that God is incompetent.

How we can use this though is by refuting individuals' interpretations of scripture and whether they are speaking on behalf of God, as we can ask them "why should I follow you rather than so and so."

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Why would an omnipotent god who wants a "relationship" with humans never talk to them directly and only speak through intermediaries?

You literally answered your own question.
Your question is the latter, your answer is the former.


No dilemmas to be found, very self-explanatory.
That said, in your OP you mentioned missionaries/preachers etc these are people who have beliefs, and are not Prophets sent by the Absolute, so you must take note of that.
Missionaries/preachers only serve supportive and proselytizing roles within an already-established belief system.

The role of Prophets are true intermediaries as they are given Revelation from the Angelic realm which affirm the Absolute (God).

There isn't much else to it though, as far as your question goes.



And also you do miss that God does speak to people directly, not as revelation though. This direct "communication" is otherwise known as Mysticism, and it is present in all religions, period. Mystical paths are at the core center of all religions in their original state, not so much in their eXotericized mainstream states though which very much water down religions to being about simply only holding beliefs and following rules etc.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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.

Where is God hiding?

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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.

I agree. Personally the term "Personal God" makes me cringe.

However God is both the most simultaneously "distant" (transcendent - all-encompassing) and "close" thing there is.


To me, the term "personal God" also conjures up the connotation of an Angel - of which God is nothing like. The Christian view too conjures up the childish notion of an "imaginary friend". Such notions and approaches I consider entirely abominable, especially in the context of what is supposed to be God; The Creator and Source of All Things.

Anyway, Surah Ikhlas is the most definitive of all for summing all of this up.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

We know now the universe had a beginning and it will have an end.
The most convincing argument for the existence of God is that the
universe could not have created itself when it didn't exist - and for
no reason whatsoever.
The essential first step in a relationship with God is FAITH. This
faith does a work in lives. A God walking down the street every day
leaves nothing to faith - everyone believes and everyone is afraid.
But faith means God comes to us through scripture and through the
preaching of the Gospel. And having faith must go on from believing
in God but also believing God can provide for our spiritual life.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Do you mean God is not powerful enough to make his voice not feel overwhelming to the average human? Ok, I guess.

 

[Koldo]

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.

My perspective is similar to yours but not quite the same. I feel the best argument against is how people get to learn about God: hearsay. I put aside whether God would or not want this to be the way he wants to be known. I am questioning the basis of knowledge claims that substantiate God beliefs. Hearsay is insufficient to substantiate an extraordinary claim that is supposed to change one's life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Not to mention that many of these intermediates are conveying messages from various very different and most of the time mutually exclusive, gods. With no way for their audience to properly distinguish which one is correct, if any.

As has been said so many times: the can't all be right... but they CAN all be wrong. And considering that all of them make he same type of claims based on the same type of non-evicence, chances are rather enormously huge that all indeed ARE wrong.


Also, if I were an omnipotent god and would rely on "text" to pass my message on to humans through the generations... I wouldn't be "inspiring" ignorant goat herders into writing on my behalf while relying on their own personal interpretation....

Instead, I'ld create the book myself. And I wouldn't make just one copy and give it to the least credible people I can think off. Instead, I'ld create a copy for every community on the planet. And I'ld create that book out of indestructible material. And I do mean indestructible. The kind of indestructible that a 25 megaton nuke detonated 5 inches away wouldn't even dent it. Being omnipotent and all, that shouldn't be a problem.

Imagine Columbus arriving in latin America, discovering native tribes there and finding out that they have a copy of the exact same book holding the exact same text and made from the exact same indestructible materials....


But no... instead, we supposedly have to rely on copies of copies of translation of copies of copies of translations of copies, originally written by ignorant goat herders who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun and who apparantly were only aware of what was happening in a 300 mile radius - and even managed to get some of that wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems that the atheist position does not or will not understand just how powerful G-d is

You say "understand", but what you really mean is "believe".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The excuse that 'there is no evidence' is just that: an excuse.

Not accepting / believing a claim based on there being no evidence to support said claim, is not an "excuse" to not believe.

It is in fact a rational reason to not believe. Not an excuse at all. Instead, rational justification.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)?

So the bible should be viewed as just another example of humans writing down their imagination / superstition?
The bible is thus irrelevant to learn about god? Might as well read the quran, lord of the rings or harry potter?

So... if none of these "inspired scriptures" are actually inspired, or actually come from god, then where do you get your info from?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You didn't ask me, but I did.
And I concluded it to be pretty much the same garbage as the bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

No, sorry, false analogy.

The difference is that if you would WANT to see a virus, YOU CAN.
All it takes is a sample and a microscope.

You CAN verify the claims of scientists and doctors concerning viruses. You do NOT need to take their word for it.

But that isn't the case at all with "god mediums". It is literally impossible to independently verify their claims. This is why religions require "faith" while science is the opposite, since science concludes from evidence instead.

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.

Sure, but this reeks a bit like an argument from popularity imo.
If 100% of the world would be christian, christianity would still be a faith based belief that can't be objectively differentiated from sheer imagination.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

How could this possibly be the "best way"????
This "way" is what resulted in thousands upon thousands of different denominations within christianity alone - and they all read the same book!

You can add a couple more thousands to that when you also include other religions.

CLEARLY this isn't "the best way" to spread a message among humans, which if real might actually be the most important message for human kind in the history of the universe.

The "best way" would also produce "the best" results, after all...
If "the best way" is not what would produce "the best" results, then I have no clue what you mean by "best".

I think the problem is really not the way, but that some people just don’t want to hear.

Please.....................................

You "don't hear" 99.99% of religious claims out there, just like me.
Would you say that you "don't want to hear" the claims about Thor, Odin, Mars, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Lord Xenu, your inner Thetans, Baal, Ra, Shiva, Visjnoe, Krshna, Buddha, etc etc etc etc

Or is there some other reason for why you don't find any of these claims convincing?

If the message is the same as in the Bible, would it be better, if it would be said directly to you?

Yes. As that would demonstrate that it's not something that was just made up by humans, if it is communicated to me by something else then a human or through text written by humans.

Would you then become righteous and love others as yourself?

Not more or less then I already try to be.
Are you saying you can only find the motivation to be a good person and act responsibly and morally, unless there is some omnipotent supernatural dictator to reward you for it?

Sorry, but if you require a big brother that's watching you 24/7 in order to act morally, then you are not a moral person at all.

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.

This requires a priori belief.
It's like saying "if you would believe, then you would believe".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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."

Uhu.

In the US, it's even quite an awesome business model, allowing you to become filthy rich at the expense of your congregation and all that while also having much opportunity to avoid having to pay any taxes.

 

[stvdv]

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)?

So the bible should be viewed as just another example of humans writing down their imagination / superstition?

That is a big .. big leap of your imagination. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. Mistakes does not equal imagination/superstition

The bible is thus irrelevant to learn about god?

That is a big .. big leap of your imagination. I did not say that, nor did I imply that; just don't believe blind, use common sense + discrimination

Might as well read the quran, lord of the rings or harry potter?

That is a big .. big leap of your imagination. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. I never said that the Bible is the only source to learn about God

So... if none of these "inspired scriptures" are actually inspired, or actually come from god, then where do you get your info from?

That is a big .. big leap of your imagination. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. I said "God did not write it, hence don't blame mistakes on God". So, that is not the issue here.

 

[Rival]

You say "understand", but what you really mean is "believe".

No I mean understand, thanks. The general atheist conception of G-d is way too small.

 

[stvdv]

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.

IMO: Very true. Humility is required and being willing to "do the time". Many Atheists are in the stage of mocking God or spirituality.

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.

That is the impression I also get from many Atheists, hence they kind of block the communication and understanding, making debate useless.
Another problem I see with Atheists and Scientists is, that they believe (yes they also do) that Science is able to understand Spirituality. If you study French language, you will not automatically understand Chinese language. That concept most Atheists still don't get IMO.

 

[stvdv]

No I mean understand, thanks. The general atheist conception of G-d is way too small.

That could be solved easily though, if they are "open enough" to accept a broader conception of G-d.