Atheism is more probable than Theism

Rebuttal 1.God is omniscient. 2.God is omnipotent. 3.God wants everyone to believe in him. 4.Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists. 5.Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration. 6.Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration. 7.However, atheists manifestly exist. 8.Therefore, it's likely the god described by the first three conditions does not exist. This argument relies on the premise that God wants everyone to believe in him. It only eliminates the possibility that he wants everyone to believe in him. For it is very possible that God does not want everyone to believe in him. This idea only comes from the written scriptures. This in no way elminates the existence of an initial cause. 1.God either does or does not reveal his existence 2.If God does not reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief 3.If God does reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief, only knowledge 4.The problem of vagueness indicates that there is an unclear ground for belief. Then why are the majority of the population on Earth theists? Obviously, there is some reason for belief. Ontological Argument Defense Hercules is the greatest warrior in history. A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not. If Hercules only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater warrior Therefore, Hercules existed. This argument has been parodied many times to prove the existence of literally anything. For one, your Hercules argument fails to meet the criteria of a maximally great being. For a maximally great being is one that is existent, the greatest conceivable, and the greatest possible being. Being a great warrior is not maximally great, (for Hercules might not have been a great potter.) therefore the argument fails. Another is that it is self contradicting. If Hercules is the greatest warrior in history, then he already existed, didn't he? As for the island argument, which is even worse than the Hercules one: God is that thing than which no greater can be conceived, Gaunilo's is that island than which no greater can be conceived. Thus, while no island may exceed it in greatness, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that some non-island could. A necessary being is both existent and the greatest conceivable and greatest possible being. Only God, as defined in the argument, meets all of those criteria and can, therefore, be dubbed a necessary being. In fact, the only way to disprove the Ontological Argument is to show that it is an incoherent idea, for example, a round square. The concept of a maximally great being is not an incoherent idea, for it is very possible that it exists. As for Quantum Fluxuations, I have provided a video that does well to show the problems with them. http://www.youtube.com...= And what it means is that even if the universe has always existed, what cause it to exist-for under different circumstances, a never ending universe may not have existed. Fine Tuning ArgumentI think you did pretty well at taking out my fine tuning argument. Sources:http://www.reasonablefaith.org...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...