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.
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.
- 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.
Failure of p3
Nowhere in the definitions of omniscient or omnipotent is there any implication of the desire or "want" of God. Therefore, making the jump from God is omniscient and omnipotent to, "god wants everyone to believe in him," is a logical fallacy. Thus the "argument from the existence of atheists" is an argument from fallacy.