There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

By three dimensional, I mean that we are only limited by our personal knowledge of the third dimension; that we are only aware of the physical three dimensional world around us and, perhaps, the fourth dimension, as we travel in a linear fashion through time. I believe theoretical physicists have posed the theory that there are eleven dimensions in total, although I cannot say for sure. As such, human beings are very limited in their observation of the universe. This may change with scientific endeavour in the future, but for the present, we have to rely on what's observable with the knowledge we have now. What we know so far is that we are part of existence and I accept that you interpret my observation as a composition of fallacy. If we were to consider the brain as the source of the mind, we could not then say that the rest of the body was self aware. The arm cannot think. We can, however, state that the brain is the source of intelligence in the body. I do not wish to use an analogy as it has its flaws (THIS IPHONE HAS A CREATOR. THEREFORE, WE ALL HAVE A CREATOR), but although we are a component of the universe, we are not a separate isolated component. If that were the case then we could actually consider that a deity put us there. Much to the contrary, existence was started in a big bang (or something to that effect), rendering every aspect of existence as one being, in this case, existence. To then argue that existence is made of separate unrelated components would merely to expand on the definition of existence. This brings me to my point of a deity or a God. Any rational scientific analysis would suggest that all religions are simply wrong. A man cannot rise from the dead. A man cannot ride a winged horse into heaven. How then, can we accept their professed God is a separate entity from the universe and created it by the construct of love? No doubt this is highly implausible. Thus, the definition of God has to be considered more abstractly than previously thought for these reasons. From an atheistic point of view, previous definitions of God are simply without justification and, thus, wrong. The creation professed by these books is wrong with the theory of evolution, so why cannot their definition of God be wrong? Does he have to be intelligent? Does he have to be able to bend reality? Does he have to be regarded as a he, she, it, many, or none existent? The answer is no. The definition of God is subject to change and this has been the case for many thousand of years. Polytheism and monotheism have all been used in defining what God is (abstractly speaking), but have always been flawed in their concept, as they are human constructs and provide no evidence on either a heaven or that respective God. However, these definitions have always been in regards to what humankind's place is in the universe is. Using the Christian God as an example, our creation was formulated by an all-loving father figure. Thus, our existence in the universe is in relation to him. If we were to establish that there is no celestial being that created us, as atheism establishes, then, that the definition of God is none existent. It is simply a human construct. A fable. However, this does not mean that God is not. In order to give a more accurate definition, we therefore have to reconsider what humankind's place is in the universe. Are we an amalgamation of chemicals, astronomy and chance? Whether this is the case or not, the fact remains that we are the only self aware beings (for argument's sake) in the universe. If we were not there, as may well be the case, then there will be no intelligence in the universe to speak of. Does this mean God will die? Our interpretations and constructs of God surely will. Existence, however, will continue, in a metaphorically brain dead state. Linking this back to a reasonable argument for God, humans have to find a reasonable rational definition of what God is in regards to them. Science has shown that previous definitions of God are false and unfeesable, but science has only dealt with God in his religious definition and not on its own terms. Science has stated that we all came from a primordial soup, but it hasn't dealt with why the laws of science has allowed this. "So there must be a God." This is a false speculation with consideration to a celestial deity. All we need to know and for the moment we form and integral component of thought in the universe, intrinsic to the rest of existence for the mere fact that it is part of existence and the laws of science which defines it. Is evolution not more beautiful, subjectively, then an all powerful being demanding the presence of light? Regardless, if the universe had a brain and thought, it would be in living matter. My personal definition of God is existence and the creation that has been made in it and that our being here shows that we are a part of that God, despite our respective theological constructs of what he is. I apologise for the questionable structure of my argument.