God exists

I'm going to copy and paste my argument from another debate I'm having on the same topic. Pro has offered no good arguments. Well there two questions we must ask.1- Can god exists?2- Must god exists?1. Can god exist?Arguments From Divine Incoherence:These arguments shall demonstrate that the Christian god probably doesn't exist, because the existence of such a god would result in utter incoherence.Problem Of Omnipotence:God is defined as omnipotent. Omnipotent: " (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything."P1)If God exists, then God is omnipotentP2) It should be the case that there is nothing that god can't doP3) There is something that god can't doC1) God does not existsP1 is true by definition.P2 is a derivation of P1P3) Is a contentious point, that if true shall negate P2C1 necessarily follows from the premises.Defense of P3 via syllogism:P1) An omnippotent being can create an object it can't lift.P2) If an omnipotent being can create an object it can't lift, it can't lift the object, thus it isn't omnipotentP3) If it can't create an object it can't lift, then it is not omnipotent.C4) Omnipotence is impossible.The common objection is that this is a logical impossibility and god is bound by the logical absolutes. However to say god is bound, is to concede omnipotence. However it get's even worse than that. God can't even do all that is logically possible.P1) An omnipotent god can be evilP2) An Omnibenevolent god can't be evilC1) A god that is defined as omnipotent and omnibenevolent can't exist.It is not a logical impossibility to be evil. Humans are evil all the time, so it's logical possible, however god can't be. So the Theist usually says god can do that which is of god's nature. So this basically means god can do what god can do, which can be said for anyone.The Problem Of Evil(Epicurean Paradox): P1)God exists.P2)God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.P3)An omnibenevolent god would wish to preventall evils.P4)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.P5)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.P6)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.P7)If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.P8)Evil exists (logical contradiction).C1)Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist.The problem of evil is a very old argument and theologians have had thousands of years to address it. So what do they say? The response is usually free will. But if there's a god, there is no free will for anybody.Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):P1)An omniscient god knows the future.P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.C1) You don't have free will.So if there is a god, there is no rational way to combat the problem of evil.Problem Of Omniscience And Free-Will:P1) If god exists, he has free will and is omniscient.P2) God knows the futureP3) God knows what actions he will performP4) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)P5) God's actions are predeterminedP6) God has no free will.C1) God does not exists.(True by virtue of omniscience)So as defined god's existence Is In coherent.Implausability Of An External Observer:P1) God is omniscientP2) God would observe all quantum superpositionsP3) Observation collapses quantum superpositionsP4) God would collapse all quantum positions superpositionsP5) All quantum superpositions are not collapsedC1) God does not exist" Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics)."2. Did a god need to create the universe? KCA: "Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause." NO.This is a terribly presumptuous argument.A) Everything that begins to exist has a causeB) The universe began to existC) The universe has a causeD) That cause is godIt presumes1. Everything non-eternal has a cause2. The universe has a cause3. The universe has a supernatural causeAssumption1 is false. In quantum physics particles come in and out of existence with no cause. Further more something comes from nothing, this is demonstrated by experiments regarding the Casmir effect.Assumption 2 might be true. I will elaborate on axiom two in my discussion of plausible cosmological models.Assumption 3 is so absurd that it ISN'T EVEN FALSE. One could never know if the universe has the transcendent cause; it isn't even testable.This violates Occam's razor.If it is true everything has a cause and the universe has a cause, then why can' the universe be the cause of its self.Saying the universe has a transcendent cause raises unneeded questions that CAN'T EVER BE ANSWERED.Assumption 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.(I didn't discuss premise B, because it's probably true, but it is not necessarily true. There are eternal models.Cosmological Models In Which God Is Unneeded:-The Oscillating UniverseThis is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed. -Hartle HawkingI really like this one because the universe has a begining but no cause. QET:-Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension."The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are self contained models.Multiverse- 1. Let's visit the multiverse. The multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation. Via BICEP2 Primordial gravitation waves have been detected, which is almost indisputable proof of inflation.Inflation accounts for the:1.Uniformity. The cosmic background radiation is quite uniform. Inflation adequately accounts for the uniformity. A uniform region expanded rapidly, evolving into our visible universe.2. Mass density. Inflation predicts the omega should 1. The Planck satellite measures the omega as 1, which means our universe should be flat, which it is.3.Small non-uniformity. The small non-uniformity in the universe is easily accounted for by quantum fluctuations, which have been observed in the CBR.As explained the multiverse is a consequence of inflation. All the other predictions have come true. I would say that would constitute a good reason to think the multiverse is true.Via inflation, some parts of the early universe expanded more than other, created bublbles of space time, which later developed into other universes, and our universe is just a bubble universe and requires no creator just a prior universe. The multiverse can be eternal.Conclusion:Not only does this god not need to exist, this god does not and can not exist.http://wwwphy.princeton.edu.........http://space.mit.edu.........http://arxiv.org.........http://www.universetoday.com.........http://web.uvic.ca.........http://www.preposterousuniverse.com.........http://www.scientificamerican.com.........http://www.scientificamerican.com......... http://en.wikipedia.org.........http://en.wikipedia.org.........http://www.theopedia.com.........'s_known_attributes