Irreconcilable God.

This post is very simple in it's aim.
I wish to show the inconsistencies of responses to the claim "god does not exist because of X attribute."

Any argument against god targets what is understood by god to formulate an argument against him existing.
Any response to that argument is based on what that person understands to be god, and what is understood to be being attacked.
There are potentially infinite arguments.
There are potentially infinite responses.

By responding one creates a finite set of attributes to god. E.g. he gives free will/he predestines us. he is all powerful/all knowing/all loving. he is timeless etc etc etc there are so many

The amount of attributes created are so great that they are not all mutually compatible. Over the years people have responded to the potential infinite arguments, they all come up with contrary or self defeating answers.

there are three answers to this

Maybe one person is right. (This would be self defeating because they are denying another persons faith for their own.) This is suggested by the many different religions.

At one point every attribute has been accepted. At one point every attribute has been denied.
This leads to. God does not exist, he is created by the people around us.

People, although they claim to, do not know what they believe in. (this is self defeating in terms of what a religion teaches)

The reason these arguments appear here is because the concept of god is constantly under change. Through argument attributes are ascribed to him, arbitrarily tagged and removed for the purpose of argument. So in this way the "features" of God at anyone time can change. This further the claim that through argument no true position can be met.

Thus the only position a believer can take, without denying someone else's god, or responding contrary to their beliefs: is fidiesm. a position where exclusively rely on faith.


For me, the burden of proof does not work. I do not need to try an prove god does not exist by argument (the burden of proof). As i have just shown with the above, it is pointless.