I suppose part of the reason I remain an atheist (and am one in the first place) is because believers can’t seem to come up with a comprehensible version of God. The only versions that I’ve ever heard that make any sort of sense whatsoever is the deist and pantheist versions of God.
Deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
Even deism doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. You could certainly argue that any position taken without evidence is not one based ‘solely on reason’, but even if you were to grant that you could take such a position, why would such an entity bother to create everything and then abandon it?
More importantly, why would we bother to worship such a fickle deity? Our lives aren’t made better by the act of getting on our knees and worshiping an entity that exerts no influence on natural phenomenon and abandoned creation once it was finished creating it.
Then you have the pantheist version:
a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
Okay. I can sort of agree with this one, but why even call it God? This God wouldn’t be conscious in the way other versions of God supposedly are. By that I mean that we could be considered part of the universe and we’re conscious, which would by extension mean the universe is conscious as long as conscious entities exist, but it seems to me that there is no reason to worship such a thing. Why worship a universe that we’re a part of? It wouldn’t hear your prayers or grant you a miracle if you performed a ritual correctly.
Then you have more complex Gods, such as the Christian Trinity. You’d think that by virtue of being more complex, it would be easier to defend your position, but I think the more complex the God, the harder it is to defend. The Christian God is one such example.
If you watch enough debates on religion, you will quickly notice that many Christians, Muslims etc. actually defend their beliefs by taking a deist position. They don’t want to defend their faith using their holy books because that’s damn inconvenient. It’s much easier to defend the simplicity that is deism, than it is to defend their beliefs in talking snakes, resurrections, flying horses and even their very concept of God.
For example, the Christian God is often described as being omnibenevolent, which literally means ‘all good’ in Latin. Yet, if we look in their very own holy book, we find this:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
It would seem that according to their holy book, their God created evil. How could something described as ‘all good’ be capable of creating evil? If it were capable, why would it be willing to create evil?
Even if their holy book didn’t tell them flat out that their deity created evil, many Christians would tell you that their deity created everything. If their God created everything, and they believe evil exists, then by extension their deity created evil.
Then you have the concept that God is outside of space and time.
In other words…God is capable of existing no place at no time.
What the…*insert expletive here*
The point being that I’ve yet to hear a concept for God that I found comprehensible. Most people don’t bother to explain what they mean by ‘God’ or expand on its supposed traits. They merely revert to defending a deist God, which I don’t see worth debating in the first place, since it would play absolutely no role in how we as a species live our lives.