People who devised arguments against the existence of God relied on a combination of logical reasoning, analysis of textual contradictions, and observations of real-world suffering and afflictions.

Challenging the Divine: A Logical and Empirical Critique

People who devised arguments against the existence of God relied on a combination of logical reasoning, analysis of textual contradictions, and observations of real-world suffering and afflictions. For example, some argue that if God is not visible and cannot be directly observed, then his existence is subject to doubt. It is also often pointed out that the numerous contradictions in sacred texts, as well as the existence of wars, diseases, and other forms of suffering, do not seem compatible with the idea of an all-merciful and all-powerful God.

Supporting this view, one source notes:
"The arguments usually cited in justification of the belief in God's non-existence appear, at the very least, naive from the standpoint of elementary logic. The main ones are as follows: 1. No one has seen God. 2. There are many contradictions in the Bible. 3. Science has proven that there is no God. 4. Wars, diseases, and suffering are incompatible with the existence of God." (source: link txt)

Another text emphasizes that the very idea of denying God is founded on the fundamental uncertainty of reality.

According to this perspective, atheism represents a position that people adopt because they believe the world lacks a fundamental basis or an original support:"How should we evaluate the alternatives and how can we come to a decision?

a. From the beginning, one must agree on one point with atheism: it is possible to deny God. Atheism cannot be rationally destroyed: it is unprovable, yet at the same time, it is irrefutable. Why? It is precisely the experience of the radical uncertainty of any reality that gives atheism sufficient reason to assert that reality does not have an original foundation, an initial support, or an inherent purpose." (source: link txt)

Thus, the conclusion regarding God's non-existence is based on a critical analysis of observable reality, attempts to logically substantiate the absence of empirical evidence, and an evaluation of contradictions in religious texts. Together, these arguments create a picture in which the probability of God's existence is seen as unlikely, based on observation and logical analysis.

Supporting citation(s):
"The arguments usually cited in justification of the belief in God's non-existence appear, at the very least, naive from the standpoint of elementary logic. The main ones are as follows: 1. No one has seen God. 2. There are many contradictions in the Bible. 3. Science has proven that there is no God. 4. Wars, diseases, and suffering are incompatible with the existence of God." (source: link txt)
"How should we evaluate the alternatives and how can we come to a decision? a. From the beginning, one must agree on one point with atheism: it is possible to deny God. Atheism cannot be rationally destroyed: it is unprovable, yet at the same time, it is irrefutable. Why? It is precisely the experience of the radical uncertainty of any reality that gives atheism sufficient reason to assert that reality does not have an original foundation, an initial support, or an inherent purpose." (source: link txt)