Argument from inconsistent revelations
The Argument from inconsistent revelations is based upon the many number of interpretations of holy texts and scripture. If scripture was revealed to man by God and God is infallible, then all revelations would be the same, inerrant text (notwithstanding necessary linguistic and, perhaps, cultural differences).
Thus, God cannot exist in the sense that Christians claim, because his own writings betray his capacity for error — or betray his non-existence. Either God is fallible, or humans wrote the Bible and God was not involved. Needless to say, Christians don't like either of those possibilities.
"[There] is a lack of agreement among believers. If there is a deity that [loves and cares about you], why do no two believers agree on any social or moral issue? You name it: gay marriage, doctor assisted suicide, stem cell research, the war, these social issues we are struggle with. You find devote, praying, Bible believing Christians on both sides of those issues. Paul wrote in the Bible 'God is not the author of confusion'. But can you think of a single book that has caused more confusion than that Bible? [...] Why shouldn't it be clear? Why shouldn't this all powerful and all loving deity make it clear to us? It is not."
"If God were to behave this way [by communicating with humans], as the whole God hypothesis predicts he should, he should be [communicating] with everyone all the way back through history. We should have records going back to ancient Chinese shamans saying 'yeah God preached to be the gospel'. We would have agreement on the record of God being a nice guy and chatting with people, telling them what they need to know to live a good life, and to again salvation, the things he wants for them. This is a prediction that the God hypothesis makes in my view. The fact that the prediction doesn't bear out is one of the refutations of the theory. Whereas the atheist hypothesis predicts that we should have not this but complete disagreement over history, men making up religions, thousands of religions. That is what atheism predicts, that is what we observe."
Argument from existence of atheists
- Main article: Argument from nonbelief
Closely related is the argument from existence of atheists:
- God is omniscient.
- God is omnipotent.
- God wants everyone to believe in him, Christians, especially those who set out to evangelize generally assume this.
- Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.
- Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.
- Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.
- However, atheists manifestly exist.
- Therefore, the god described by the first three conditions does not exist.
Of course, an apologist could reply to this by saying that atheists do know that God exists but are just denying him out of stubbornness. Indeed, this response has been used many times by different apologists. Admittedly, some non-believers do disbelieve simply out of stubbornness, but most have good reasons for their disbelief, and thus this response isn't an effective one.