The Case Against the Existence of God

I am of the opinion that the Abrahamic God (like Thor, Ra and Hera) probably doesn't exist. I'm not SURE he doesn't exist. He might. But I find the sheer number of different deities that have been proposed through recorded history (and almost certainly prehistory too) to be a major stumbling block to any burgeoning flutterings of belief.Because I haven't seen evidence to suggest that any specific deity exists any more than any other, the chance that any one proposed creator deity actually exists seems vanishingly small.Does that make me more than an agnostic? I think so, because I don't think an agnostic would say that they thought that all proposed gods appear fictitious.Does that make sense?

Maybe its OT - sorry if this is the case - but I want to plug my earlier post once more. I think the problem with your opener is your attempt to minimise the difficulties posed to any one religion by the heaps and heaps of other religions.To me, that's one of the central foundations of my tentative atheism.In effect, if one is attempt to find the one true religion, then one is looking for a straw in a haystack.

Okay. Lets see if I'm thinking straight.There are thousands of different religions in existence, all of which are supported by broadly equivalent proofs.* This means that if one of them is correct, then it would only be the accident of your birth or some other chance circumstance that would allow you access to this truth.If there isn't any way of recognising god's truth, then I find it really hard to imagine that, if we are beholden to a god, the god to whom we are beholden is in any recognisable human sense benevolent.I tend to believe that, considering the seemingly parochial or arbitrary nature of belief, you can most likely rule out any god that proports to be benevolent and simultaniously threatens punishment for unbelief.Obviously, that doesn't rule out a deistic deity, or even a malevolent one. Nor does it rule out an Abramic god who is benevolent but in a way that appears to mere humans to be malevolent. However, I think it makes the existence of an Abramic god, who is benevolent in a sense meaningful to humans, at least seem a bit questionable. It does for me, anyway.Does that make sense? It really wouldn't suprise me if it didn't.*This has nothing to do with this post really (I'm going off my own topic!), but one of my favourite proofs for a deity's existence is a version of the no true Scotsman fallacy that is sometimes used to support the truth of Islam. Basically, it runs that the Koran is obviously divinely inspired because no human could ever write a book like one of the divinely inspired books of the Koran. Of course, many have tried, but none have succeeded, even though the shortest book of the Koran is only a few lines long. Impressive, huh?