Arguments Against Existence of God

God is used as a euphemism for love
God used to describe to whatever one may not comprehend (similarly free will is sometimes used as an excuse of not being able to explain behavior)

years ago, God was used to describe how the stars aligned, now we know why due to a field of science explanation called cosmetology
Essentially, God is usually a subjective definition based on the individuals comprehension level of the world around them.
This is true as without a sense of curiosity of the unknown, no one would be interested. This is what religion makes of people, it tries to make people mysterious by claiming their lives need to be sanctified, as if they are something special. Without this appeal to mysteriousness, there would be no reason to respect or tolerate the presence of others.
Similarly, love is a "euphemism" to explain what you are unwilling to understand. This is what love really means, it's the act of being intimate, as intimacy is a form of Stockholm syndrome, it is a byproduct, a symptom of "love."

To learn about disproving god, one must first learn how to learn, and learn how one learns about what a "God" is

Then I would use the same logic to explain the following: If I claim that I spoke to God and he told me to murder 4 people would that make it justified?

Body subconscious way of thinking (forced, involuntary thinking) of setting and pursuing goal for survival
Once you understand the real reason why, it's a part of human programming (otherwise known as human nature) to change their minds. Because, think about it like this: you are an elephant tied to a pole when younger, when you grow older you still believe you are weaker to run away from this pole when in reality you are much stronger than.

I want to identify the root cause of my actions so I know what variables to avoid (like being vulnerable in the wrong area), religion does not want you to identify this because they want to keep you hooked onto morality by being unaware of the real reason behind your behavior and replacing that with free will objectively suppressing your intellectual curiosity about human behavior so you'll rely on religion more

This is why those who are religious are more likely to believe in spanking children as they don't want to know why children are doing what they are doing but rather only care about the moral justification behind it.

If you can't define what God is then God is whatever you can't define - meaning whatever you can't explain is God, which makes sense because people use God works in mysterious ways all of the time to showcase their lack of empathy and caring to understanding

If that is the case, this indicates that those who see and practice "god" - moral, love, trust - see curiosity in others, however, intellectuals understand poeple and know there is nothing special about the common man, which makes them bored of everyday endeavours and mediocore sports like baseball in favor of more technically complex sports like gymnastics, proving that gymnastics is objectively a more intellectually stimulation and athletic sport.

God is a eupahmism for "love" - an excuse many use for spanking
Whilst I belive in specific curcumstances spanking can be used or the greator good, I do not believe in ritualized punishment that many pro-spanking advocates offer.

I can prove this by pointing out the fact that no one (in their right mind, at least) teaches religion to other animals, such as dogs. It does not make sense because a dog cannot comprehend the existience of a God.

Provoking Questions:

Yes, because of the same logic of learning they apply to learnign from their past, interpreting as ritualized spanking as a punishment as discipline is an example of not effectively learning from the past of the real reason.

Love is a feeling of emotional attachment that arises out of lack of closure to curiosity.
The problem with love is that when you're conditionally emotionally attached to said lover (including abuser/torturer) you will not recognize the real reason why, which decodes this notion of "love" as something arbitrary, moreover, recognizing the real reason will take away the magical sustain feeling and attachment of love as you realize you are chasing something that will never exist: for me, it was a happy relationship with the rest of my family, that is simpy impossible. In the same way it's impossible to compriomise with rapists and torturers, the same logic I apply to the parents, sure, it was on a smaller scale, and whilst I was never directly sexually molested, the comparison sstill exists as it was on a smaller scale of equiviocacy.