Argument Against God’s Existence #2 – If God Wanted Us To Believe

Let’s say God wanted everyone to believe in him (I don’t know why, honestly it sounds very petty and vain, but that’s for another time). How would he do this? It would be quite easy, he would simply part the clouds and shout “Behold, I am God etc” and instantly convert the whole world. This happens all the time in the Old Testament so it’s not as though I’m asking for too much.  God would get billions of converts for two minutes work. Then why doesn’t he do it? The only two reasons I can see is that he either doesn’t care or doesn’t exist.

If it’s too much to ask for God then why Jesus or an angel or one of the people who are supposedly in Heaven? If Christopher Hitchens was sent back to Earth and told Atheists they were wrong, a great many new converts would be made. Then why doesn’t God do it?

Why is God content that whole continents don’t believe in him? Why have there never been any miracles in China? Why do saints not appear there? Why is it that those who claim to have seen Jesus were already very religious Christians? What’s the point they already believe. Why doesn’t Jesus appear to Muslims or Buddhists? Why not Atheists? If God or Jesus don’t want me to type this post then why do they not ask me to stop? If Jesus does not make any attempt to convince me, can you blame me if I don’t believe?

Let’s say that instead God decides to send his son in human form. Would he have not realised that some people might just think he is a human? Ignoring that, where would God send his son, to the most populated region of the planet (China) or an otherwise insignificant desert (Israel)? Would he send it to a place where his actions could be documented and recorded (Rome) or a place where few could read and write (Israel)? When would god decide to send his son? At a time when his actions could be recorded for future posterity on camera and video (now) or at a time when stories were mainly told from memory? For a supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful God he doesn’t sound very smart.

Has anyone noticed the decline in miracles since the invention of photography? In Medieval times miracles and saints were as common as muck. But once photography became common, miracles only happened in rural areas before stopping altogether. Why? Surely the whole point of Jesus or Mary appearing to people is that proves their existence. Surely a picture would prove this to millions rather than the usual handful who witness them? As an Atheist I admit that if a video appear of Jesus sitting down and talking, I’d convert then and there (a proper video, not something so blurry you can’t make out a thing. He’s the son of God; I don’t think it’s beyond his capabilities).

It simply does not make sense. That’s why I am an Atheist. It does not make sense, there are too many unanswered questions, too many illogical inconsistencies.


Filed under Religion

37 responses to “Argument Against God’s Existence #2 – If God Wanted Us To Believe

  1. Daz

    I’m pretty sure, in your first paragraph, you mean to say “…it’s not as though I’m asking for too much.”🙂

  2. Very interesting thought. But I do not see why is this a reason that you are an atheist. If I can outline your reasoning, Robert, and please do correct me if I am wrong or misrepresent your case.

    1. If God want every one to believe He exist, then He would make/do something that every one would believe He exist
    2. God did no make/do something that would make every one believe He exist

    The only conclusion, we get from this, is that God does not want every one to believe He exist and not your conclusion “atheism” God does not exist.

    I believe, Robert, your argument against God is non sequitur. The conclusion you drew does not follow from the premises. I might have miss something🙂 Please do help me see the logic between God did not make every one believe He exist to God does not exist.

    Thanks for a good post.


    • That is a fair summary of my views. What I meant was this shows the God as almost all religions describes him/it does not exist. While there could be a different God, it does not care about us or want us to worship it.

      • Sorry, I assumed you were talking about Christian God in particular, as I read about Jesus and Old Testament in your article.

        What reasons could we offer to say that Christian God as described in the Old and New Testament books does not exit? The argument given in this post fails because its non sequitur.

        I am curious to know what reason could we offer🙂


        • Well I was using the Christian God in particular as its the one I’m most familiar with, but almost all religions believe there is a God watching them and wants them to worship him/them/it. Let me try and simplify my argument.
          1. If there is a God watching over us and he wants us to worship him (essentially Christian God, but most religions have similar versions)
          2. Then obviously he/it will make his presence known and offer sufficient proof of his existence
          3. There is no sufficient proof, therefore God, as defined by Christianity and most religions either does not exist or does not want us to worship him (which is in practice atheism)

          • Thanks Robert for a good reply. I think we ought to understand the Christian position correctly. God in Christianity is a personal free agent that revealed himself as a He.

            What reasons, Robert, could we offer to support the claim that because God is watching over us and wants us to worship Him then He would make his presence known by giving sufficient proof of His existence?

            Moreover, Robert, how do we move for no sufficient proof that God exist to God does not exist? Would that not be ad ignorantiam: the truth of a claim, viz., God does not exist, is established only on the basis of lack of evidence against it?

            Lack of evidence, Robert, is not evidence that something is true or false, I believe. But I may be very wrong🙂


        • Daz

          Wrong question.

          There is no onus on those who are sceptical of the existence of something to prove its non-existence. The onus is on those who hold up the hypothesis that a god exists to provide evidence in favour of that proposition.

          The proper question, therefore, is “What reasons could we offer to say that Christian God as described in the Old and New Testament books does exit?”

          This video might help explain the reasoning.

          • Well Daz, that is misunderstanding the Burden of Proof🙂

            The burden of proof is the responsibility of whoever makes an asserting for her view. Roberts view is that “If God is watching over us and wants us to worship Him then He would make his presence known by giving sufficient proof of His existence”. It his responsibility to show that this view is correct.

            We ought to defend our views if we want someone to believe that it is true. We can not just through claims without defending them🙂 Don’t you think?


            • Daz

              But that’s not the question you asked. I quote:

              What reasons could we offer to say that Christian God as described in the Old and New Testament books does not exit {sic]?

              • In deed. Robert’s view that Christian God does not exit. If He want us, Daz, to accept his view, I believe, he has a burden of proof to offer arguments(reasons or evidence) that that would lead to a conclusion that Christian God does not exist.

                Only the person who say she does not know(agnostic) has a right to sit and watch those who say God exist and those who say God does not exist share the burden of proof to explain why they believe what they believe.🙂

                We can not just through a claim around, e.g. there is no gold in planet Mars, and run for cover waiting for a person who say there is gold in Mars to refute our claim. If we are going to rationally convince a skeptic that there is no gold in planet Mars, we ought to offer reasons why we think that is so. Don’t you think?


                • Daz

                  This is definitely my last comment until Robert assures us that multiple messages piled up in his inbox are okay with him.

                  You are the one making an assertion: that a god, of whatever stripe, exists. We do not have to argue the opposite. It is for you to offer evidence in favour of your hypothesis. Would I need to offer proof that a pink submarine is not in orbit around the moon, or would it be more sensible to wait for people asserting the submarine’s existence to provide supporting evidence of their claim? “Orbital pink submarines” is not a hypothesis that needs disproving, until we see evidence—not myths dating from the bronze age—that they might exist. Same goes for gods.

                  While I’d be daft to require proof that tables exist, that would be because I’ve seen a table or two in my time. I’ve never seen a god, nor met anyone who claimed, in anything like evidentially reliable terms, to have seen a god. I’ve never seen any sign of the existence of a god. Therefore I have no reason to act as if god(s) exist(s). You want me to act as if they do, then show me some evidence.

                  • Good morning Daz.

                    I believe, I did not assert that Jew God exist in these comments. I only said, If God exist. I may be a fellow atheist🙂 Daz.(I am not) but I wish to know what reason does Robert have to believe that: Christian God does not exist is a true dissertation.

                    If I were an atheist, then I would like to be able to reasonable defend my positions/views. I would be unreasonable to simply through a negative claim that I cannot defend myself but wish others to refute them while I sit back and enjoy the drama. I believe, even a theist would be intelligent dishonest if she did that. Image a theist saying “She do not believe in atheism” and gives no reasons for holding her position simply because she made a negative claim🙂

                    So, assume, Daz, I am a fellow atheist, who wish to know what reasons could my fellow atheist have to hold to a conclusion that “Christian God does not exist”.


                    • I suppose I should jump back in here. First of all I don’t mind you guys commenting at all, your free to do so, even if I don’t fully understand what your saying.

                      I’d agree with Daz, believers have to support their claim, the burden of proof lies with them. Think of it like a trial. Someone is innocent until there is evidence to prove them guilty. I believe a claim should be not be believed unless there is supporting evidence. I feel there is not enough evidence to support the claim that God exists, therefore I am an atheist.

                    • Daz

                      Thanks Robert. I thought it polite to wait to make sure.

                      Prayson, you may not have asserted that you personally believe in the Judeo-Christian god, but you did make an assertion that the burden of proof should be on the person asserting disbelief. That is an incorrect assertion, as it would leave is with no choice but to ‘prove’ that Harry Potter, pink fairies and any other thing that can be imagined but is not immediately evident is untrue. Furthermore, it is impossible to ‘prove’, 100%, that anything doesn’t exist somewhere, provided it can be imagined as breaking no natural laws. That way, madness lies!

                      So, assume, Daz, I am a fellow atheist, who wish to know what reasons could my fellow atheist have to hold to a conclusion that “Christian God does not exist”

                      Neither Robert nor myself has stated that any god, Christian or otherwise, does not exist—merely that it seems highly unlikely given the lack of evidence and the nonsensicalness of much supposedly-supporting scripture.

                      You could argue that we’ve taken the strong agnostic position, rather than outright atheism. (Agnosticism being the claim that gods’ existences are unprovable either for or against.)

                      Agnosticism says, “I can’t know”.

                      Atheism says “Given that there is no supporting evidence, I choose not to believe.”

                      I’m agnostic in view of the unprovableness, and atheistic in view of the evidence.

                      Given that lack of evidence, the proper question you, as an atheist, should ask, is “Why would I believe in unevidenced, unseen beings?”

                    • Thanks Robert and Daz, for a wonderful dialogue that is full of respect and aim at finding the truth.

                      I agree that existence or non-existence of God, as believe in classical theism, cannot be proven 100% but I believe that both side, atleast to be reasonable atheist or theist, need to have background information to claim it is more probable that God does not exist or does exist.

                      Daz, the problem I see, which I believe to be a weakness of neo-atheism is that the belief that all you need is disbelief without reasons or evidence for that disbelief. One fails to see that there is a belief in disbelief.

                      Example, Robert belief that Christian God does not exist(disbelief that Christian God exist). It is a disbelief that carries another belief whatsoever. One only hold a position, as Robert did in asserting that Christian God does not exist, because he believe that that assertion is true.

                      Robert is very correct in saying “I believe a claim should be not be believed unless there is supporting evidence.” and that is why I asked why does he believe that his claim that “Christian God doesnot exist” is true?

                      Imagine I say I disbelief atheism(a belief that God cannot not exist) and gives no reasons simply because I gave a negative claim or I argue that People from NY should not pay taxes and I do not support my claim just because its a negative case. I believe that kind of reasoning is not justifiable.(If we find unicorn, toothfairy believers then we ought to hear there case before we dismiss, or justily dismiss by reasoning that these beings are fiction characters that so and so created for a bedtime stories)

                      Daz, you did not assert that God does exist, but Robert did. Robert reasoned : “There is no sufficient proof, therefore God, as defined by Christianity and most religions either does not exist or does not want us to worship him (which is in practice atheism)”

                      He concluded that Christian God does not exist because Robert believe if Christian God existed then He want us to worship Him.( p or q, not-q therefore p)

                      I was an atheist, but moved to agnostic then to Christian theism, doing Philosophy and Theology in University because I came to find out that I did not have reasons to my position. Even if a Christian theist failed to give a good positive case, I failed to see a justifiable reason to hold that no reason for God is reason against God.

                      I respect your position, Daz and Robert, but I believe if atheism has a future in critical thinking, then I believe it ought to be a position that is accepted because of reason, not lack of reason, if not as Russell, then agnosticism is a justifiable position.

                      Thanks both of you. I am following both your thoughts in your articles for I find great wisdom, provative positions that challenges me to think harder and wrestle with these most important question.


                    • Daz

                      I’m having a little trouble with your sentence structure (English as a second language, yes? I mean no insult by it) but if I follow your meaning, you are basically reasserting that we need to justify our non-belief. If so, you’re merely repeating yourself in new words. Which is where the polite tone you keep thanking me for starts getting a little ragged. But I’ll try.

                      At the risk of repeating myself, the lack of any evidence in support of the existence of a god or gods means that I do not have to justify my disbelief in gods. Sure, I’ll keep an open mind, but not to the point where the wind blows through it.

                      If someone can show me well-attested evidence that points to the possibility that gods might exist, then I will reconsider that position. But it is up to them to furnish that evidence. Until then, I have no more duty to look for evidence of gods than I do to look for evidence of garage-dwelling dragons or orbital teapots.

                    • I respect your position Daz. Thank you😦

    • Daz

      However, your statement that “The only conclusion, we get from this, is that God does not want every one to believe He exist and not your conclusion “atheism” God does not exist,” leaves only two possible conclusions.

      1: No god exists.
      2: A god exists but is not omnibenevolent.

      Corollary: If we take the Christian position, that we must have belief to gain the reward of heaven (or avoid the punishment of hell, depending on the brand of preacher you’re listening to), then the one thing we can preclude is a god which loves all humanity equally, as he is purposefully denying us the means to gain that reward. Since most Christian doctrine states categorically that God is all-loving, this presents something of a problem, does it not?

      • Hello Daz,

        Thank you for good input. I believe we ought to know the Christian position first before we misrepresenting it namely “it a belief to gain the reward of heaven or avoid punishment of hell” because we heard it from different brand of preachers.

        Remember, Daz, that we are dealing with Modus tollens:( If P then Q. Not-Q, therefore Not-P)

        So I do not see were the other possible conclusions comes in from Robert’s reasoning, Daz.

        I am curious, how is God being all-loving entails that He want every one to believe He exist?


        • Daz

          I am curious, how is God being all-loving entails that He want every one to believe He exist?

          If we take the common Christian view that belief is necessary to salvation, then a god who—by your reasoning in your first comment, does not want everyone to believe—ipso facto, is not an-all loving god who gives equal chances to be rewarded. You may, if you like, reject that common Christian view, but you’re then arguing a personalised version of Christianity that’s at odds with the common perception.

          • If we think of Christianity then we have to remember the following:

            Jesus, as recorded in John, said no one can come to/ or believe in Him unless his Father draw/grant that person. Paul also claim that the crucified God is foolish to non-Jews, and a stumbling block to the Jews, but power to believe for those who God freely choose to make himself known. According to Christianity God does what He pleases. He show mercy to whom He show mercy.

            I am sad that most of modern Christians have created a god that is rosy and does not hurt a fly. But If we are to examine Christianity, then at-least we should try to be fair enough to say we understand it before we criticize it.

            Thanks Daz for the tune of your replies and gentle spirit.


            • Daz

              Ah, but the tone of my replies often depends on the tone of the person I’m conversing with, along with whether I find them getting … evasive, shall we say.🙂

              I’m curious also. If this god is as arbitrary as you claim with who it shows mercy to, and if we take the not exactly nice things it does in the Old Testament into account, why do you feel him worthy of your worship and devotion? Personally, if I believed in such a being, I’d be more likely to condemn it as immoral and have nothing to do with it.

              • It does not matter what I feel about God, Daz. If god was an it, then you are so correct, Daz🙂 But as I explain to Robert, we have to understand the Jew God, if He exist, from a Judaism context.

                From a Judaism context, God is righteous, holy, just, morally perfect creator of the universe and other invisible beings. If that is correct, then I believe He is worthy of my worship and devotion.


                • Daz

                  Your God cannot be morally perfect if, as you state, he is arbitrary in who he shows his ‘mercy’ to. Moral perfection would require that all people are given an equal chance at reward and and placed under equal threat of punishment.

                  I’m leaving this for now until we hear from our host, as we’re seriously clogging his inbox at a furious rate, which is rather unfair of us without prior permission.

                  • According to Judaism context, then Paul of Tarsus agree with you, Daz. In a letter to a church in Rome, he said:

                    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

                    For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

                    For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” and that ” Non-Jews do works of the law because it is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them”

                    So according to Paul, if Jew God exist, then nature and moral conscience gave all chance to know that timeless, spaceless, immaterial Cause of the universe that is moral perfect exist. It is only, us, who knows it but rejected it, according to Paul that is.🙂

                    Moreover everyone, Daz, according to Christianity, face the same judgement. Christian believe that Jesus took the place of their punishment. If that is true, I do not see why Christian God, if He exist, that He would be unfair.

                    Let me know your thought.


                    • If I understand right, you are saying that non Christian people have no excuse for not believing in God or Jesus because they can see them in nature around them. Surely it is an extremely large jump for someone to go from “that mountain is impressive” to “Jesus rose from the dead” or “what a beautiful sunset, there must be an almighty creator who watches and loves us.”

                    • Not in that sense, Robert, in nature and conscience comes a position called Natural Theology.

                      Example, ex-atheist, late Antony Flew claimed “Well, I don’t Believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence is now much stronger than it ever was before.” when he moved from atheim to Einstien-Spinoza kind of theism.

                      And Einstein reasoning “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

                      Both Flew and Einstein came to believe in god, not personal God, because of what nature revealed.

                      Jean-Paul Sartre, borrowing Dostoevsky claimed “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself.”

                      Atheist Paul Kurtz also reasoned that “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, they are purely ephemeral.”

                      Richard Dawkins, Julian Baggini, and Michael Ruse also reason almost the same that no God, no objective moral duties and values. To Dawkins, objective morality is but pitiless indifference, to Baggini, neitheir right nor wrong and to Ruse, its illusory.

                      All these brilliant atheists reasoning entails that objective morality, if existed, finds their ontological grounded in the nature of God. Thus one can see God in conscience.

                      It is in that sense, I believe, one makes that jump🙂 Let me know what you think.


                    • Daz

                      Your Satre and Kurtz quotes are merely statements that they want a god to exist, in order to furnish life with certain qualities. Neither shows any reason why the universe has to contain the god they hope for, or the qualities they hope for.

                      Also, a wish for the existence of objective morality falls into the same trap. Just because one might want it to exist, does not mean it exists.

                    • Satre and Kurtz are atheists Daz, so its not correct they want God to exist.

                      Well. Thank you for your thoughts. And yes, English is my second😦 no insult taken. Having three languages, Swahili, Danish and English in academic level is a hard job for a silly confused brain like mine.

                      See you and thank you, Daz and Robert.


                    • Daz

                      My bad phrasing.

                      Within the context of the quotes, they’re talking about the negative consequences of a god not existing. I should have said something along the lines of “for the sake of argument, they’re wishing for… etc”

  3. Mac

    Robert. There is a documentary that exists focused solely on miracles currently happening all over the world. It was filmed by a guy who was very skeptical of it all. It’s worth checking out man.

    It’s called Finger of God. You can watch it on Google for free (thought the quality isn’t stellar.) Here’s the link: (Though I’d recommend watching a higher quality version.)

    I’d encourage you to watch it, if you genuinely want to see actual miracles, healings and other crazy stuff. On film. All around the world. Including China.

  4. all your reasoning shows why one is justified in not believing in or following religious dogma, but it does not prove the non-existence of god, which humans are not in a position to know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s