Existence of god

Let"s start with a combination of your first argument and your comment concerning omnipotence. Let"s first look at how the "laws of logic" actually come to pass. Thinking organisms such as humans and especially humans, observe their surroundings. As the surroundings (our universe) seems to have a structure which is ordered, the human describes it through which the "laws of nature" are contrived. Throughout time, those have improved through the thinking process of many humans, resulting in modern science and especially in physics, describing the world as based on just four fundamental forces. This description fits well and the result is that laws of logic follow the physical laws in so far as that the physical laws decide what is possible and what isn"t and that the laws of logic give an easy connection between different, by the laws of physics, described things. If you would say that the laws of nature are dismissed at any point, the possibility of the laws of logic wouldn"t be there as well. Now from here we have to ask ourselves, what the laws of nature actually are. They are information which is in everything we can observe. The information describes the properties of things which result in the interaction of such things according to their inherent informaiton. Now what your arguments boils down to is the question whether information can be created by a naturalistic process. As I will show later as we come to the DNA, it is very much possible to get to information within the universe and therefore as long as we have the information embedded in thing by laws of nature. Whether it is possible to create information prior to our observable universe is pure speculation. If one for example looks at the different models of the multiverse, where we are just a pocket of a for example infinite universe the information that is necessary for our universe to exist, can be derived from the prior one. It still leaves the question open why there is something (in this case information of an infinite multiverse) rather than nothing. Again we have no possible way of observing nothing and therefore have to be again open for speculation. If there is nothing as well as the something we call universe we first have to look at our universe to see which property inherently changes from being nothing to being something. Our universe as far as we can evaluate it actually is a configuration of nothing. If you consider all mass which is through Einstein"s equation also energy and add it up, also taking dark matter and dark energy into account, the sum approaches zero (we haven"t gotten all of it jet but the trend is clear). Therefore our universe actually is a configuration of nothing. Why then this universe exist rather than any other if they all describe configuration of nothing, is, as modern quantum mechanics tells us, just a matter of probability. Yes all of this can"t really be proven and is therefore more of a speculation, but the difference to theism is that this speculation aligns with the, to us observable universe in so far as that it explains our observation of the universe. You can say that theism can do the same and as I already said, with a badly defined theory you can explain away everything you want, which you make a good use of in your last four points. You can see what a badly defined hypothesis is, if you look at the things the model predicts. For a good theory it has to predict data, and it has to be even if only in theory be possible to falsify the theory. This is done by science as all I said prior actually even though very well fitting the data and therefore is falsifiable in its basis, isn"t a real hypothesis but rather an off spring of our current understanding, as it can"t be proven on the big scale and therefore can"t be falsified either. The theistic model though is, while also not falsifiable on the big scale, not falsifiable in the basis of data which we have and which it would have to satisfy. It can be seen as everything can be bent just as needed as scientific data keeps emerging. Therefore we can say even though not being sure about the scientific theory that the theistic one absolutely can"t be a good theory. Now for the argument of omnipotence we have to just see what your description of gods power actually entails. If god can"t break the laws of logic, it also entails that he can"t break the laws of nature either. While it isn"t as obvious, we have seen that the laws of logic are a human perception of the laws of nature in action. In this way for example the resurrection is also logically impossible, because the mere breaking of all the laws of nature (from all the second law of thermodynamics, to the conservation of energy and momentum, which all are based in the four fundamental forces of nature) entails also the breaking of the foundation of the laws of logic, because now if this is possible the observation bringing about the laws of logic have to be suspended at some point, to break the laws of nature (a cause without an effect (increasing entropy has the effect of decay which would be reversed at that point)) and therefore wouldn"t be possible to describe all of our observed universe. So what you say is that if god can"t break the laws of logic, he can"t break the laws of nature either, as they are the foundation of the laws of logic and breaking the laws of nature would necessarily entail a breaking of the laws of logic. Therefore your god can"t do anything outside of the laws of nature inside the universe, as all of this would entail contradictions to the laws of logic. Your description of omniscience is somewhat vague and a perfect example of such a theistic explanation. You want to have with a freedom of choice connected with gods all knowing nature, and say this is possible, because god is beyond the finite knowledge. This is exactly the same as me saying god is not there and giving the argument that it is beyond our capabilities to argue it, but still say that this argument stand. Free will and freedom of choice are as described above a contradiction with gods all knowing nature. If it is still the case it is again a breaking of the laws of logic (if he knows what you will do and you do something else his knowledge wasn"t perfect) as well as the laws of nature (that in your brain something immaterial causes a material cause, which isn"t possible logically). Now your last part is also not possible, because he himself is subject to the same problem, that if he knows what he will do in advance, he can"t choose to not do it and if he can he isn"t omniscient. Omnibenevolence you say bases itself on the assumption that a world without suffering is to be preferred. Now the problem with your description is the all loving part. You say that if god knows that this universe ends in perfection and he also knows the best possible universe it is not to be proven that less suffering is good. But if you say that he is all loving and perfectly moral, and you describe this omnibenevolence as allowing us to find him in our own free will, through turning to Jesus, this would entail that for this purpose there could be no better place to allow humans to find him in their free will. This is pretty much obviously not true. This goes along with him choosing just one peasant tribe, which you say again is just preferable for god for no reason, but him wishing to do it. It seems obvious that if he would revealed himself through Jesus in china for example it would have had way more effect on the whole world and way more would have come to him. Also if the scriptures where in any sense obviously divine, it would now lead even more people to him. Also if you say that he created specifically humans for himself it would have helped if their own thinking, which is devised by god, had a means of observing him clearly. It would still be possible to turn against him but not for the unnecessary reason of not observing him. Now your phrase that he keeps us in existence, is again something we have no information about. We just don"t know what existence even exactly is (is anything actually existing or is it just a configuration of nothing) and whether it needs some perfect being to hold it there. Therefore to say that it needs a god can"t be based on anything we know. Now let"s come shortly to some of the other points. I have already answered the point about the laws, which are just information embedded in the universe and therefore not an immaterial thing but just a property of the thing itself, which answers the third point as well, as the property of something in naturalism determines its action and therefore has the logical consequence of determining what stuff does. The fourth point I have also shortly addressed and shown that in a possible way it is just a question of why nothing has taken the observed configuration, which is as everything in science always a question of probability. Now as I have referred to it earlier I will now approach biology. You say that abiogenesis is the theory which needs explanation and in general I agree with you on that one, but as seen above the thought that god did it also needs it, because it would again be an intervention by god which would need to suspend the laws of nature and logic, similar to every other way god could intervene. Now to come to the models for abiogenesis which seem to fit well, I directly have to admit that so far it wasn"t possible for scientists to build life. The thing I am not granting you is that this is evidence that it isn"t possible. We now know as you described yourself in the 6. point that life is extremely complex. It is so complex that it building it by our current means would equal a goldsmith making an intricate ring by working with a sledge hammer. Therefore in connection with the long time all of our models would require it isn"t at all surprising that abiogenesis can"t be observed in the laboratory. Due to a lack of space I will go on later.