An argument against the existence of a personal god.
- If there is an unimagined need for spiritual salvation, then there is a personal god who offers this salvation.
- If there is a personal god, this god is fair and loves all equally.
- If this personal god is fair and loves all equally, all have equal access to divine salvific truth.
- If this personal god is fair and loves all equally, this god has created man with equal capacity to accept divine salvific truth.
- If all have equal access to divine salvific truth, and all have equal capacity to accept divine salvific truth, its acceptance will not be dependent on culture.
- If the acceptance of divine salvific truth is not dependent on culture, the distribution of the acceptance of divine truth will not map to culture.
- The acceptance of divine salvific truth as it is taught by major world religions maps to culture.
- Therefore, there is no personal god as is taught by major world religions, and any need for spiritual salvation is imagined.
It is very clear that there exists a much higher probability that you will “choose” to be Christian if your parents or community are Christian. This greater probability should not exist in a world created by a personal god who is fair and loves all equally. When you look at a map of the distribution of world religions, you find that there is not any single religion evenly-distributed as you would expect if assumptions 2-5 are sound. I argue that they are sound, so a personal god does not exist.
This argument against a personal god from the imbalanced distribution of Truth acceptance can also be applied across the temporal dimension of history. There should also be no imbalance in the acceptance of divine salvific Truth across the centuries. There is, therefore the promoters of any such divine salvific Truth are in error.
Feedback is encouraged.
(The feedback that is most appropriate is not rhetorical, but addresses the validity of the argument, and soundness of the assumptions.)