god obviously exists

Unfortunately Pro has forfeited. Note that he still holds an unfulfilled BOP and must prove that God exists. In the interim, I'll provide a few arguments which, if successful, will completely negate this resolution. Note that it is not my responsibility to prove that God does not exist as it is impossible to prove a negative. However, Pro will need to take into account these contentions if and when he returns, and must be able to refute them in order to win. C1) Lack of evidence Normally we accept that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence; if you were asked whether the flying spaghetti monster or Zeus or a purple unicorn exist, you would quite likely answer "no" because there is no logical reason to believe in them. We may not be able to categorically disprove the existence of these things, but we accept that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. C2) Lack of necessityTheists often like to raise the "God of the Gaps" argument. This argument is flawed for a number of reasons. First, it's a non-sequitur fallacy to the effect of "If A, then B," but we can never reasonabally make such a jump to B, with B being the existence of God. Second, the universe could function perfectly well without a God. From our knowledge of quantum mechanics we now know the universe could literally "appear from nothing. " Without any evidence nor necessity, it is customary to reject extraneous ideas which (a) make no sense (2) lack evidence and (3) are logically incoherent. C3) Problem of Evil We are to assume that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. This means he is aware of evil before it happens, has a desire to end it, and is all-good meaning that he has a desire to end it. However, evil and gratuitous suffering exist. Moreover, the universe in which he created contains evil, but this was wholly unecessary. Why would an omnibenevolent God allow people to suffer if he and only he had a chance to stop it? C4) Paradox of Free Will Theists often ask us to assume that humans have free will because in order to sin, you must knowingly do wrong. However, this is wholly incapatible with an omniscient God who knows what will happen in the future. Either God isn't omniscient, meaning the concept of the Tri-Omni God dissipates, or we don't have free will. Via Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, it's reasonable to believe that we have at least some degree of free will. As a result, we can conclude logic that the Tri-Omni God doesn't exist. C5) The "First Cause" Argument is Rubbish First, as I've already pointed out, it is scientifically possible for "something to come from nothing. " Second, under the premise that everything must have a cause, God would need to have a cause. This would suggest that there would need to be an infinite stream of Gods that created each other, which means none of them could be the "first cause. " C6) Occam's RazorIf we have two competiting theories and one has more assumptions than the other, we should reject the theory with more assumptions. The science tells us that the universe could in fact emerge from nothing. Religion tells us that God, who existed in a spaceless, immaterial, timeless state prior to the creation of the universe is responsible for the creation of the universe. We have no evidence for the latter theory nor must it be necessarily true, so as a result we must reject it.