Why logical arguments for Messengers don't work.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The arguments for God sending Messengers would be legitimate unless there was a better reason as to why God would not send Messengers.

Now one of these reasons potentially can be that after the Messenger passes away, the miracles over time cease to be proofs, and that people will no longer have proofs to believe in. It also can be that the religion can be corrupted by humans, so that the message, is no longer the message of God.

Now the Quran argument that it's unique form proves it to be divine and the arguments that it's been protected by numerous transmission, would counter argue those arguments, but it would make the arguments for Messengers irrelevant.  This no human can bring the like of it argument would have to be true of revelations of the past as well.

But essentially, the independent arguments for Messengers would not be true.  The same can be said about Christianity. If there is no way to know the Bible is true via the holy spirit, all arguments of why God would send Messengers, do the sacrifice, etc, would be irrelevant.

Here's why your god doesn't really send messengers: it's because he doesn't really exist - that is probable!

If your god is in fact both all-powerful, omnipresent, and perfect, then why would he waste the resources sending anyone else to get his message across? Especially with being perfect and all, he would know more than anyone else if you want it done right...what better reasons do you need for god not to rely on some mortal shithead with his messages, knowing he will only fuck it up?