Atheism is more probable than Theism

Argument from reason1.God is omniscient.2.God is omnipotent.3.God wants everyone to believe in him.4.Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.5.Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.6.Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.7.However, atheists manifestly exist.8.Therefore, it's likely the god described by the first three conditions does not exist. A similar form to this is the argument from vagueness1.God either does or does not reveal his existence2.If God does not reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief3.If God does reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief, only knowledge4.The problem of vagueness indicates that there is an unclear ground for belief.And Though Shellenberg formed this argument like this1.If God existed, there would be no instances of reasonable or inculpable non-belief.2.But there are instances of reasonable or inculpable non-belief.3.Therefore, God does not exist.I posted three different forms for a better understanding of the argument."I myself do not fully believe all of the written word of God. It's contradicting, it has too many gaps, it's been edited by man throughout history."This is interesting. As why would God allow this?"thus an atheist must believe that everything can originate from nothing."False dichotomy. Atheists don't assert that everything came from nothing. RebuttalsOntologicalThis argument has been parodied many times to prove the existence of literally anything.One of the most famous is the Gaunilo’s perfect island, however my favorite is the perfect warrior Hercules is the greatest warrior in history. A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not. If Hercules only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater warrior Therefore, Hercules existed. One objection to this parody is that we can conceive of a stronger and stronger warrior to kill the former ad infinitum.The same can be done with the greatest being. As I can conceive of a more powerful being that can eliminate the former ad infinitum. Furthermore if God is suppose to be the greatest thing that can be conceived. Yet 2 Gods would be better than 1 and 3 God better than 2 ad infinitumIn this argument, existence is presented jointly of one God's attributes as part of the definition: if X is God, then X has got the residence of existence. It's the equivalent to "if X isn't doesn't exist, then X isn't God". It doesn't show that we have any entities that actually fit this definition.Existence could rarely ever be regarded an attribute, as anything nonexistent are not able to have attributes. Therefore, making a conclusion regarding existence of a God on its attributes is not logically sound. Simply speaking, this kind of argument comes to "show me god and to I am going to show an existing god". It's just a kind of circular reasoning as the existence was made into your presumptions.Kalam and Contingency Argument.Physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. As other events such as Quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause. [1][2] The universe would of started at this level.Mass can come from energy. (e=mc2) But, then, where does the energy come from? The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, requires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang.However, neither observations nor theory indicates this to have been the case. The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. As famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking said in his 1988 best seller, A Brief History of Time, "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty.[3]- Victor Stenger[4]Even if we were to accept every premise in Kalam, this doesn’t show it has to be God. The Kalam and Contingency Argument are basically the same, however you stated" In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an uncaused cause"This doesn't make sense, as if the universe always existed, it wouldn't have a cause.Fine tuning argumentI like the way Richard Carrier answered this in an interview. He said"Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us. Likewise, a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size and enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. And that’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size and age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely and sparingly, and that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) and by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal to life (constituting stars and black holes on which no life can ever live). Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one." Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god. Whereas a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn’t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that."[5]This argument questions the omnipotence of the creator. If he is all powerful why did he make life constrained to survive only in a tiny fraction of the universe? If God existed he could make humans live on a toxic planet with no oxygen and have us drink uranium instead of water. As humans living where they couldn't possibly live would be a complete mystery to science. However we only find life where biology predicts! Sources[1] “Even in a perfect vacuum—a region of space containing neither matter nor energy—particle-antiparticle pairs (such as an electron and its antiparticle opposite, the positron) constantly appear and disappear....”https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...[2] Paul Davies: In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162) [3] Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 129.[4] Victor Stenger, God the Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist [5] http://www.thebestschools.org...