The #1 reason I'm an Atheist to the Abrahamic gods

[Butterfly Christie]

Hi there! Newbie here, and I was a Christian for 20 years. It wasn't really a one point that suddenly made me an Atheist. It was after years of careful study of religion and their arguments for their beliefs. I thought it would be interesting to see the Christian defenses for why they think its true, and the defense for why people think it isn't true. The Christian arguments didn't hold any water and the Atheist arguments made a lot of sense. After that I looked at other religions, and the non-believer arguments always made more sense. So I consider me an Atheist on every religion that I have studied so far. The second best reason was just the utter lack of evidence, but I shall present the one to you that took the cake.

Even going with the Christian perspective hypothetically, how do we know this is not just a very powerful being, beyond our understanding, who is trying to do something evil and is tricking us into thinking its a good god by giving us illusions that it is a good god, or a god at all, from it's tremendous power that would go beyond our ability to understand it? A very powerful being, who is beyond our understanding, would be very much capable of doing that. So asking us to believe in it and worship this biblical god when its not proving this to us doesn't make any sense. It is irrational for it to demand that we believe and worship it when we don't have a way of knowing this, or if it is telling the truth about itself. This God supposedly is transcendent and is seemingly all powerful from the human’s perspective at least.

In the bible it’s described to be omnipotent: (Matthew 19:26 - Matthew 28:18 - Luke 1:37 - 1 John 3:20 - Isaiah 14:24-27 - Revelation 19:6 - Isaiah 46:10 - Mark 10:27 - Luke 18:27 - Job 42:1-2 - Isaiah 55:11 - 1 Kings 8:27)

When something goes beyond the human minds understanding we can't know its full nature, thus we can't know its real place in the universe and its relation with it, thus we can't know if what its doing is right or if what someone describes about it is correct and so its not possible for us to truthfully believe it is what it says it is, or worship it.

In this case there would be no way to verify it's claims, because any evidence it would show us has the possibility of being just an elaborate and powerful illusion manifested from it's abilities that go beyond our understanding. This is the situation humans would be confronted with when we come across a very powerful being which is beyond our ability to understand at the moment.

I say at the moment because I don't like to put a limit on human discovery; what we can accomplish in the future, but this is a claimed god that is asking people in modern times, and people before our time to believe, who I'm very sure didn't have those kinds of capabilities. Otherwise people around thousands of years ago could have given us evidence of what makes up an omnipotent being, it's general nature, how they manifest into existence, and so forth, so we can know everything about it to verify what it tells us. This needs to be evidence, not claims and hearsay. This god would also have given the proof to every believer, before they were believers so they could rationally become believers. I'm not seeing this evidence being given out to unbelievers, being an unbeliever who has studied religion for a long time. If this god has not shown you that evidence, and the other things needed to confirm it's claims, then it is irrational to ask you to believe.

This would need to be evidence that can't be an elaborate illusion from a being so powerful it goes beyond our ability to comprehend it, and claims to be omnipotent. I can’t see how that kind of evidence would be possible......because if the being is omnipotent like the biblical god claims it is, that means anything could be an illusion, and we wouldn’t have a way of knowing if it is. Omnipotence means infinite in power. Something beyond our understanding is a direct contradiction to something that is evidential. So there is no way around it, either the god doesn’t exist, and this is a human error from someone living in those times, or a being with an incredible amount of intelligence that goes mbeyond the human understanding is giving us a proposition that isn’t possible for humans to rationally or sanely fulfill. If people believed in things without evidence, or logic like the proposed god is asking us people could in the same way believe in leprechauns, invisible purple unicorn hippos, deadly cults, etc. because those things have no evidence, or logic either. Which means the supposed god is opening it’s own people up to be dangerously manipulated. The first option I gave is extremely more probable.

Further, punishing us because we don't believe would be like punishing a disabled person wheel chair because they can't run a marathon, or punishing a dog because it doesn't know rocket science. Even closer to the point, the Christian God would be creating a disabled person and then punishing them for being disabled.

Humans do not know everything, when someone doesn't know something the possibilities are infinite on what it could be because the possibilities include things that we haven't thought of, or things that we are not capable of thinking of, things we can't comprehend.

I'm not saying that there definitely is something with an intelligence far beyond ours giving us illusions for reasons that only it can know, just that its in the realm of possibilities because there is so much about everything that we do not know. We can't assume anything that we don't know is true because then people would end up believing anything at the mercy of the human imagination. That's not how someone finds the truth, but at the same time the possibilities are infinite when it comes to things we don't know, including that. Even a persons alleged experience with the Holy Spirit is very much capable of being an illusion from something beyond our understanding.

[FONT=&quot]..or anything else because we are talking about anything we can't or haven't thought of.

I've called this "The argument from Q" because of a character on Star Trek named Q who is this omnipotent alien who goes from planet to planet tricking the life beings on them into these different schemes.
[/FONT]

 

[JustWondering]

I lost my faith for basically the same reasons. Once I actually started studying the bible I began to realize how irrational and messed up christianity is. Welcome to RF.

 

[Orbital]

I find the question "why is god good" to be quite intellectually challenging to theistic beliefs (the ones that claim that their god is good). But I yet have to find an interesting answer to this, other than "it's a faith thing".

 

[1AOA1]

Why do you take one property and leave out the most fundamental? God is omnipotent but God is not love?

 

[tarasan]

Well is disagree with almost everything youve said! XD

ive been studying my religion in depth for four years now, and to me its athiesm that isnt satisfactory!

welcome to the forum

 

[LuisDantas]

Welcome. Great avatar!

 

[Butterfly Christie]

I lost my faith for basically the same reasons. Once I actually started studying the bible I began to realize how irrational and messed up christianity is. Welcome to RF.

Hi! Yes this seems to be where reason takes us, thanks for the welcome!

I find the question "why is god good" to be quite intellectually challenging to theistic beliefs (the ones that claim that their god is good). But I yet have to find an interesting answer to this, other than "it's a faith thing".

Yes, and faith doesn't take away the situation that they wouldn't have a way to truly know about the being, because even what ever would be revealed to them by having faith still has the possibility of it being an illusion from something they don't understand.

Why do you take one property and leave out the most fundamental? God is omnipotent but God is not love?

I mentioned omnipotence because it would be something to show how much beyond our understanding the being would be. I wouldn't be able to claim the god is love because you have to understand something first to be able to see if it's really love, or just claiming to be love and showing us something that appears to be love but in reality it's an illusion produced by means we don't have the ability to understand yet.

Granted we wouldn't be able to know if the being is truly omnipotent as well, we'd only be able to know it has abilities that go beyond our understanding. My point in my argument is all the same as long as it's a being beyond our understanding. When something has the ability to create the universe, or is able to do something that would at least convince humans it has the ability to create the universe, I think it's fair to say the possibility certainly exists that it could show us something that presents itself as something it's not, through means we don't know about, so there wouldn't be a way to verify anything about the being, except that it's beyond our understanding.

Well is disagree with almost everything youve said! XD

ive been studying my religion in depth for four years now, and to me its athiesm that isnt satisfactory!

welcome to the forum

Thank you! If you found a reason to disagree then you'd be able to give the reasons why.

Welcome. Great avatar!

Aww thank you so much!

 

[Meow Mix]

When something goes beyond the human minds understanding we can't know its full nature, thus we can't know its real place in the universe and its relation with it, thus we can't know if what its doing is right or if what someone describes about it is correct and so its not possible for us to truthfully believe it is what it says it is, or worship it.

Not to mention that something completely ineffable as some theists assert can't even be believed in rationally -- else what is believed in? When they assert that God is beyond understanding they might as well be saying "An unknowable thing exists in an unknowable way," which is as asinine as if they'd have instead said "T'was brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

I like your "Argument from Q," too. Welcome to the forum.

 

[1AOA1]

I mentioned omnipotence because it would be something to show how much beyond our understanding the being would be. I wouldn't be able to claim the god is love because you have to understand something first to be able to see if it's really love, or just claiming to be love and showing us something that appears to be love but in reality it's an illusion produced by means we don't have the ability to understand yet.

Granted we wouldn't be able to know if the being is truly omnipotent as well, we'd only be able to know it has abilities that go beyond our understanding. My point in my argument is all the same as long as it's a being beyond our understanding. When something has the ability to create the universe, or is able to do something that would at least convince humans it has the ability to create the universe, I think it's fair to say the possibility certainly exists that it could show us something that presents itself as something it's not, through means we don't know about, so there wouldn't be a way to verify anything about the being, except that it's beyond our understanding.

So if the fundamental property of love is left out, and omnipotence is taken from our studies, then we an say that it is not omnipotent enough--if at all--to convince us that it is love. With our understanding now surpassing it, it no longer has the ability to conceal itself, nor is it powerful enough, and we know that it is love. But then...doesn't it express itself through that property? Can we say that the sun is not actually hot but a cold popsicle giving off warmth? Isn't heat the very property we know it by, and what we experience?

 

[tarasan]

Thank you! If you found a reason to disagree then you'd be able to give the reasons why.

oh sure i could give plenty of reasons!

but what do you wanna talk about i figured it was your thread after all, wanna focus on something specific,

you talked about monipotent and lack of evidence...

so which one...both? it easier tho to pick on thing because of the nature of this forum it would be hard to keep all the "balls in the air" so to speak

edit: your main arguement seems to be that God is beyond understanding, that quite frankly i find to be very untrue, and dont know how you got to that conclusion!

unless you studied some strange theologians

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not to mention that something completely ineffable as some theists assert can't even be believed in rationally -- else what is believed in? When they assert that God is beyond understanding they might as well be saying "An unknowable thing exists in an unknowable way," which is as asinine as if they'd have instead said "T'was brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

More, actually, since the Jabberwocky line actually has defined (contrived, but defined) meaning:

When publishing the complete poem in 'Through the Looking Glass', Carroll had Humpty Dumply explain it to Alice. Humpty Dumpty tells her the words mean the following:

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/alicepic/through-the-looking-glass/2book30.jpg "Brillig": four o'clock in the afternoon -- the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.
"Slithy": lithe and slimy. 'Lithe' is the same as 'active'.
"Toves": curious creatures that are something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews. They make their nests under sun-dials and live on cheese.
"To gyre": to go round and round like a gyroscope.
"To gimble": to make holes like a gimblet.
"Wabe": the grass-plot round a sun-dial. It is called like that because it goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it. And a long way beyond it on each side.

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/jabberwocky.html

 

[Revoltingest]

Welcome!
Has anyone shown you our secret (atheist) handshake yet?

 

[Butterfly Christie]

Not to mention that something completely ineffable as some theists assert can't even be believed in rationally -- else what is believed in? When they assert that God is beyond understanding they might as well be saying "An unknowable thing exists in an unknowable way," which is as asinine as if they'd have instead said "T'was brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

I like your "Argument from Q," too. Welcome to the forum.

Hi! Oh definitely, I've seen that with many liberal Christians who argue their god into something that is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. *lol* Thanks for the friend request!

So if the fundamental property of love is left out, and omnipotence is taken from our studies,

We also need to keep in mind that the being is atleast claiming to be those things, so if we somehow found out it isn't one of those things that's not telling the truth about itself right there.

However the argument from Q, it's willing to assume for the sake of the argument a hypothetical situation that there was this being that just at least appeared omnipotent, and loving to humans, but still goes beyond our understanding. So we couldn't know if it really was those things. The argument from Q isn't making the claim that it is, or it isn't those things, just that we wouldn't have a way of knowing. This is an essentially agnostic argument.

then we an say that it is not omnipotent enough--if at all--to convince us that it is love. With our understanding now surpassing it, it no longer has the ability to conceal itself, nor is it powerful enough, and we know that it is love.

What shows our understanding is now surpassing it? Just because something is not completely omnipotent doesn't mean it can't go beyond our understanding, and I'm not saying it wouldn't be omnipotent, just that we wouldn't know if it was.

Even if we knew it wasn't omnipotent then, for all we don't know, it could come from an environment that we know nothing about, where the life beings there know a lot of things we don't know, and hence can give us illusions through means we don't know. That's just one of the infinite possibilities that arise when we don't know about something.

But then...doesn't it express itself through that property? Can we say that the sun is not actually hot but a cold popsicle giving off warmth? Isn't heat the very property we know it by, and what we experience?

The thing is the Sun doesn't have an intelligence that we know of. There have been all sorts of con-artists, all throughout recorded history who present themselves as someone powerful, willing to get a job done, or loving, but in reality were none of those things, and were just after people's money or something else. For example, many politicians, religious leaders, even death cults, or people just offering a certain job. People fall for it all the time as well. So if humans can do that to humans, what is stopping a being from doing that, which is so powerful it goes beyond our understanding? Nothing.

From an epistemological stand point, the most we can know is what is presented to us is consistent, and consistent from how we perceived it to be. Which doesn't actually verify that we are really seeing the full picture. Basically because we don't know, what we don't know. Ya know? I haven't seen someone able to verifiably show what reality is outside the human brain. If something was verified that something exists outside our perception like with Quantum Physics, it's because we used tools that were able to show us in our perception. So even with basic stuff, belief is an iffy, and irrational word. Strictly speaking belief can't be rationally done. Also it can't be generalized as belief, if there is a majority percentage of belief, because there is a percentage of disbelief in there as well, so it doesn't accurately describe it, and with some things we can't know the percentage of how much belief is rationally justified, like things so powerful they go beyond our understanding. However we can know to a reasonable degree many things that matter to us, I wouldn't say to an absolute degree. For example, we can do things that have shown to make us happy, have fun, survive, if another human being will treat people lovingly. We can find that out because we can study human nature, and through life experience of figuring out how humans act. We don't have a way of figuring this out with a being so powerful it goes beyond our understanding. We wouldn't be able to compare how the being usually acts when it's not telling the truth, like we can with humans, because we wouldn't have a situation where we were able to tell when it was not telling the truth. In other words, it's not falsifiable.

oh sure i could give plenty of reasons!

but what do you wanna talk about i figured it was your thread after all, wanna focus on something specific,

you talked about monipotent and lack of evidence...

so which one...both? it easier tho to pick on thing because of the nature of this forum it would be hard to keep all the "balls in the air" so to speak

Hi! We could address my main point in the argument. The rest was pretty much just elaborating on the main point, so I'd at least just keep the rest of what I said in mind when addressing this. Here it is:

"Even going with the Christian perspective hypothetically, how do we know this is not just a very powerful being, beyond our understanding, who is trying to do something evil and is tricking us into thinking its a good god by giving us illusions that it is a good god, or a god at all, from it's tremendous power that would go beyond our ability to understand it? A very powerful being, who is beyond our understanding, would be very much capable of doing that. So asking us to believe in it and worship this biblical god when its not proving this to us doesn't make any sense. It is irrational for it to demand that we believe and worship it when we don't have a way of knowing this, or if it is telling the truth about itself. This God supposedly is transcendent and is seemingly all powerful from the human’s perspective at least.

In the bible it’s described to be omnipotent: (Matthew 19:26 - Matthew 28:18 - Luke 1:37 - 1 John 3:20 - Isaiah 14:24-27 - Revelation 19:6 - Isaiah 46:10 - Mark 10:27 - Luke 18:27 - Job 42:1-2 - Isaiah 55:11 - 1 Kings 8:27)"

edit: your main arguement seems to be that God is beyond understanding, that quite frankly i find to be very untrue, and dont know how you got to that conclusion!

unless you studied some strange theologians

Talk about opening up a can of worms, you are claiming the being that appears omnipotent is within your understanding? Remember we are talking about the Abrahamic gods specifically, not a generic Deist-like god. So you know the full inner workings of how he can just speak things into existence, like in Genesis? How a being like that becomes omnipotent. Also you verifiably know that it is the actual creator of the universe, and not just a powerful being beyond our understanding that just appears to humans like it created the universe, but is not telling the truth somehow through means that we don't yet understand? What if it is a being that does know how to make universes because these beings beyond our understanding do it all the time, but this wasn't the actual one who made this universe? There are so many possibilities out there, the list goes on and on. So belief really is an irrational thing to ask us, or in the Christian god's case, demands of us.

Welcome!
Has anyone shown you our secret (atheist) handshake yet?

Oh neat! A secret Atheist handshake? If it grants us access to a secret lair where we get to where super hero outfits I'm in!

 

[Autodidact]

So if the fundamental property of love is left out, and omnipotence is taken from our studies, then we an say that it is not omnipotent enough--if at all--to convince us that it is love. With our understanding now surpassing it, it no longer has the ability to conceal itself, nor is it powerful enough, and we know that it is love. But then...doesn't it express itself through that property? Can we say that the sun is not actually hot but a cold popsicle giving off warmth? Isn't heat the very property we know it by, and what we experience?

Does love include killing? Because the Abrahamic God does a LOT of killing.

 

[1AOA1]

We also need to keep in mind that the being is atleast claiming to be those things, so if we somehow found out it isn't one of those things that's not telling the truth about itself right there.

Right right yes. So it is tricking us to love each other because it is evil.

However the argument from Q, it's willing to assume for the sake of the argument a hypothetical situation that there was this being that just at least appeared omnipotent, and loving to humans, but still goes beyond our understanding. So we couldn't know if it really was those things. The argument from Q isn't making the claim that it is, or it isn't those things, just that we wouldn't have a way of knowing. This is an essentially agnostic argument.

If it only appeared omnipotent, would that make it omnipotent?

What shows our understanding is now surpassing it?

Its lack of omnipotence. I removed it remember?

Just because something is not completely omnipotent doesn't mean it can't go beyond our understanding, and I'm not saying it wouldn't be omnipotent, just that we wouldn't know if it was.

If it wasn't then it isn't right?

Even if we knew it wasn't omnipotent then, for all we don't know, it could come from an environment that we know nothing about, where the life beings there know a lot of things we don't know, and hence can give us illusions through means we don't know. That's just one of the infinite possibilities that arise when we don't know about something.

So it had a beginning too? Which environment could it come from? The one where it wasn't omnipresent in?

The thing is the Sun doesn't have an intelligence that we know of.

Its only tricking us. It doesn't even give off heat. And we are freezing to death.

There have been all sorts of con-artists, all throughout recorded history who present themselves as someone powerful, willing to get a job done, or loving, but in reality were none of those things, and were just after people's money or something else. For example, many politicians, religious leaders, even death cults, or people just offering a certain job. People fall for it all the time as well.

Humans ok. There were all sorts of people who were presenting themselves as clerks and were in fact clerks with every intention of being clerks. Those who presented themselves as honest leaders, fullfilled their roles as honest leaders and lead humanity.

So if humans can do that to humans, what is stopping a being from doing that, which is so powerful it goes beyond our understanding? Nothing.

Can can can a cannot, can know know a non-know, can love love to hate? All fall in the same category.

From an epistemological stand point, the most we can know is what is presented to us is consistent, and consistent from how we perceived it to be. Which doesn't actually verify that we are really seeing the full picture. Basically because we don't know, what we don't know. Ya know? I haven't seen someone able to verifiably show what reality is outside the human brain. If something was verified that something exists outside our perception like with Quantum Physics, it's because we used tools that were able to show us in our perception. So even with basic stuff, belief is an iffy, and irrational word. Strictly speaking belief can't be rationally done. Also it can't be generalized as belief, if there is a majority percentage of belief, because there is a percentage of disbelief in there as well, so it doesn't accurately describe it, and with some things we can't know the percentage of how much belief is rationally justified, like things so powerful they go beyond our understanding. However we can know to a reasonable degree many things that matter to us, I wouldn't say to an absolute degree. For example, we can do things that have shown to make us happy, have fun, survive, if another human being will treat people lovingly. We can find that out because we can study human nature, and through life experience of figuring out how humans act. We don't have a way of figuring this out with a being so powerful it goes beyond our understanding. We wouldn't be able to compare how the being usually acts when it's not telling the truth, like we can with humans, because we wouldn't have a situation where we were able to tell when it was not telling the truth. In other words, it's not falsifiable.

Well there you go. Tomorrow someone is going to tell me that God is giant turtle. The next day, a marble. Or God doesnt exist eh? How does that one go? . Respectfully, I'll pass. By the by, God does not have love in the sense that we think; it is love. And it is the intensity of love which gives it the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. This is law itself, and can be directly noted. We don't have to wait to see if it is a trick. If you have a hypothesis that the sun is tricking us into believing that it is not hot then go ahead. Its the same thing. Heat is directly experienced, and the more heat, the hotter (or colder eh?) :beach:

 

[1AOA1]

Does love include killing? Because the Abrahamic God does a LOT of killing.

Am I obligated to delve into this?

 

[Butterfly Christie]

Right right yes. So it is tricking us to love each other because it is evil.

Of coarse that's not what I'm saying. We only need to look at con-artists for how they want very much for you to believe they are loving and treat people in every loving way possible accept for the area where they are deceiving people, because their whole scheme depends on people to think they are loving. Con-artists have been able to be exposed because they do it through means that humans can figure out. It's possible there are many con-artists out there that were never caught though. So when you bring into the mix, a being that is so powerful beyond our understanding we wouldn't have a way to see if it's using the same ploy, and whats worse is it can be for reasons that we don't know, and through methods that we don't have a way of knowing.

If it only appeared omnipotent, would that make it omnipotent?

Well again omnipotence isn't required for my point to work. Omnipotence means anything is possible for it, so if it did everything we can think of humans may suggest it's omnipotent, but really we wouldn't be able to know because what if it couldn't do something that we can't think of?

Just because something is not completely omnipotent doesn't mean it can't go beyond our understanding, and I'm not saying it wouldn't be omnipotent, just that we wouldn't know if it was.

If it wasn't then it isn't right?

No, just as I said in the paragraph you quoted here.

So it had a beginning too? Which environment could it come from? The one where it wasn't omnipresent in?

My whole point is that we don't know, because there are so many possibilities, including things beyond our comprehension, when we talk about things beyond our understanding.

Its only tricking us. It doesn't even give off heat. And we are freezing to death.

It's a possibility that in some realm that we are not aware of the Sun could be something that we are not aware of, because simply we don't know, what we don't know. The most I can know is that the Sun gives heat in the perception that I am aware of. I can't act on something I don't have evidence for, for example I can't put on a coat when it's 101 degrees outside because of the possibility I described. That's because the possibilities are infinite, there isn't just one possibility when it comes to things we don't know. So there is nothing I can verify, that would give me reason to act on it. That doesn't mean I know the sun absolutely only gives off heat in every form of existence that I'm not aware of. That's the point, the Christian god asks us to believe it is good when we don't know about it.

Can can can a cannot, can know know a non-know, can love love to hate? All fall in the same category.

We can turn the non-know into a know with the scientific method. Not with absolute certainty, but with reasonable certainty with things that are observable, but can the human brain know a non-know while it is not known, no. By it's very definition it's not known. The same with can and cannot, love and hate, the very definitions mean exactly opposite things. If it's known, then that means the not-known became a know.

Well there you go. Tomorrow someone is going to tell me that God is giant turtle. The next day, a marble. Or God doesnt exist eh? How does that one go? . Respectfully, I'll pass. By the by, God does not have love in the sense that we think; it is love. And it is the intensity of love which gives it the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. This is law itself, and can be directly noted. We don't have to wait to see if it is a trick. If you have a hypothesis that the sun is tricking us into believing that it is not hot then go ahead. Its the same thing. Heat is directly experienced, and the more heat, the hotter (or colder eh?)

Many con-artist politicians have made laws that were good for the society. It was their very intention to do that so people would believe they were good. I'm not saying the being is doing something like this, or isn't. I'm just saying that we don't have a way of knowing it, which means we don't have a way to rationally believe.

An excellent and very true quote given to me after hearing my argument who went by the name of Kelvar is:

"Possibilities are the bane of the convinced,

and the life blood of the unconvinced."

I think I'll add that to my signature when I'm able to. By the way can someone let me know how many posts I need to be able to have a signature?

 

[Hawkins]

On the other hand, It seems to me that Christianity never intends to persuade anyone by "making sense" to those humans already lost their senses about God, and not intellegent enough to reason, and not experienced enough to perceive (yet they rely heavily on their lost sense, lacking intelligence and empty experience. I mean rely HEAVILY ON their incapabilities instead of capabilities. hehe...). The whole Bible is a witnessing from mainly the Jews which it is said the God's Elect will choose to believe. It is because only those with faith will be able to make some sense from the contexts to see the true God.

And this atheist behave is very predictable (by the Bible).


Isaiah 6:9
He said, “Go and tell this people:

“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.

 

[Zelar]

Even going with the Christian perspective hypothetically, how do we know this is not just a very powerful being, beyond our understanding, who is trying to do something evil and is tricking us into thinking its a good god by giving us illusions that it is a good god, or a god at all, from it's tremendous power that would go beyond our ability to understand it? A very powerful being, who is beyond our understanding, would be very much capable of doing that. So asking us to believe in it and worship this biblical god when its not proving this to us doesn't make any sense. It is irrational for it to demand that we believe and worship it when we don't have a way of knowing this, or if it is telling the truth about itself. This God supposedly is transcendent and is seemingly all powerful from the human’s perspective at least.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

I completely agree.
----Lets says some being comes in front of you and does things like walking on water, flying, curing diseases, dying and coming back to life, moving mountains,
accurately prophesying the future , etc...
----NONE of that proves that this being is All Powerful, All Knowing, and All Compassionate ---- All it does prove is that this being is More Powerful, More Knowing, and says absolutely nothing about the 3rd trait.
I know what I just said is nothing new to you...

But this might be...
----In fact, it's impossible for any being to prove All Powerfulness and All Knowingness to another being without making that other being also all powerful and all knowing, therefore it's irrational for this being to expect us to believe it.

----Also, Most important, it's impossible for any being to prove to HIMSELF that he is All Powerful and All Knowing, meaning that he can not know for sure that there is not a more powerful+knowing force than him, even if he created all of everything. He can't be sure that everything he knows is all there is to know and everything he has created is all there exists. So when he claims such things, he is Lying, and also makes him kinda atheist-like (if he accepts that he is all powerful+all knowing when he can't really be sure of that, he is denying faith in the possibility of a greater being than him).

 

[Autodidact]

Its lack of omnipotence. I removed it remember?

Then it's not the Abrahamic God.