Does god exist

Most of these proofs are misleading, and or start with the assumption that god exists. I'll debunk these one by one your first argument is as follows P1. God is infinite P2. The negation of God's existence means that God is finite, which is absurd P3. Henceforth God exists objectively This argument is invalid because your saying god exists, it's absurd to say god doesn't exist, therefore god exists. It's both circular and assumes god exists to start. It's about the same as saying. Bigfoot exists, it's silly to think he doesn't, therefore big foot exists. P1. It is analytical from the definition of God that God is infinite. P2. Infinity is the greatest attribute to any being ever. Infinity is defined as being the greatest of all who share such attributes (in this case, existence) i.e. something that is infinite cannot be limited by anyone of it's kind. Then let us assert that a God exists in the intellect: this then, by the negation of God's existence, would be the negation of his infinitude, for God is henceforth limited by the physical, which shows that there is something greater than God, which via the first proposition is wholly absurd to think. P3. Henceforth, since God cannot exist only in the intellect for that reduces the nature of his infinitude, then necessarily exists objectively. This is basically your first argument with more fancy wording . Also why do you keep saying that if god wasn't real it would limit his power and that would be absurd. you say that twice " by the negation of God's existence, would be the negation of his infinitude, for God is henceforth limited by the physical, which shows that there is something greater than God" By the negation of gods existence he wouldn't exist, you seem to be saying if he didn't exist it would limit his power. P1. I necessarily exist P2. To exist means to exist in something that is necessarily omnipresent P3. God is omnipresent P4. Henceforth, God necessarily exists This is literally just saying I exist so there must be something omnipresent. Then even if that's true you assume it's good therefore you saying because god is omnipresent he must exist. You can't start with the assumption that god exists if you seek to prove his existence. P1. This is ultimately the most controversial premiss of this argument, for idealism is still an important influence in many societies, and especially on this website. Then let us first assert that we can "doubt" that we exist. This doubt then necessarily leads to an object that doubts of the existence of the object, and it would be wholly circular to say "I think that I do not exist" for then this "I" would not exist to doubt the existence of this "I" too. Hence, it follows that "I" exist, and that is certain. I shall not attempt to prove the existence of other minds, as I do not see that as especially needed in this debate. [2] P2. Then let us assert that something omnipresent does not exist: then analytically, the object would not be omnipresent. Hence, our existence would necessarily be included in a being that is omnipresent. P3. This is developed from the definition of God P4. Henceforth, the existence of God can be implied. Ok so in premise two you say that we will assert that something omnipresent doesn't exist then say that if a object isn't omnipresent it's not omnipresent. Yeah that's kinda of the point. Then you say we be included in something omnipresent which is just a assumption you don't bother to prove. Then you just assume god exists. P1. Everything has a first cause P2. The first cause is God This is getting painful. You say that there must be a first cause which you don't prove then say that the first cause must be god. Even if we accept your first premise you're conclusion isn't justified because you don't prove that the first cause is god. P1. Conceive a thing that does not have a cause, except for the first cause: that is impossible. Henceforth, it must be argued that something must have caused everything, including casaulity. For how can something come from nothing, if the necessary tools for something "coming into existence" has not been made yet. Hence, we can necessarily denote that something must have caused everything. P2. This is analytical from the definition of God. Ok so in premise one you say something can't come from nothing. So where did god come from? If you're going to say that god always existed then why is it less valid to say he universe always existed? and again in premise two even if we accept your first premise is true you don't prove the first cause must be god. For your next round I would like some physical evidence god exists.