God exists

=Rebuttals=My opponent gives one argument for the existence of god, namely "It is if people believe in it" This isn't good argument, people can think of countless different things, it doesn't make them real in a sense we're discussing here. As I mentioned in definition "God under discussion is not an idea, not a word, not a concept. " Therefore it's not enough to merely show that people can think of god. =Arguments against god=A1. Problem of evil and sufferingThis objection can be formulated as a neat deductive argument:P1. If all loving and omnipotent god exists then gratuitous suffering and evil don't exist. P2. Gratuitous suffering and evil do existC. All loving and omnipotent god doesn't exist. P1. seems to be obvious. I think it goes without saying, that god who deliberately creates sentient beings only to make them suffer, and then does not gratify it in any reasonable way, can't be considered good. P2. We now know that animals can feel pain and suffer n a way similar to human one. . http://tinyurl.com... . http://tinyurl.com... However according to teachings of most religions animals don't possess any kind of immortal, immaterial part. Therefore after years of suffering they're doomed to be annihilated at best without any gratification. Some specimens will be born with severe mutations turning their lives into nightmare. Despite this they can't hope for anything. Such state of affairs is absolutely incompatible with the notion of all loving and omnipotent god who could intervene in course of events at any given moment. As we can see both premises are sound, therefore conclusion is sound as well. My opponent would have to show that either it's possible to be omnibenevolent, yet cause gratuitous suffer to living beings, or that it's not true that animals other than humans can suffer, or that god will finally make amends for all suffer. A2. Problem of informationThis is argument against any sort of god who allegedly revealed himself at some point in history and especially against gods who want to judge us taking into consideration whether we believed in them during our life time. P1. If omnipotent god exists and wants to reveal himself to humankind then there should be an irrefutable proof for his existence. P2. There is no such proofC. God either doesn't exist or doesn't want to reveal himself to us or he is not powerful. In first two cases belief in one is unwarranted. In latter, there is no good reason to call such being a god. Let's look at our premises. P1 Stands to reason, if god really wanted us to know of his existence, and if he is very powerful, he should be able to provide us with such a revelation, that no one in their right mind could even dream of refuting. It should be the most obvious thing in the universe, that god exists. It's important to notice that most people actually believe that god revealed himself in some way or another. P2 Is sound too. There are many different books, some of which are claimed to be divinely inspired, some to be literal word of god etc. None of them contain any revealed knowledge unavailable to humans of time of revelation. Instead they contain lots and lots of anti scientific claims, dubious, outdated moral teachings, in many cases they're riddled with contradictions. In other words, there is not a single piece of actual evidence to support the existence of god. And that's what we would expect if there was no god at all. You can see that both premises are sound, therefore given deductive nature of this argument conclusion must be sound as well. A3. Problem of soulThis argument attacks religions which state that humans are the only beings that possess immortal soul and that this soul is necessary to be saved. The objection is this:At some point during human evolution there had to be a moment when soulless parents gave birth to child with soul. It has to be the case, the alternative is that literally all other beings possess soul, a view that isn't endorsed by any major religion. But it necessarily follows that at some point in history, there were two generations living together, one with soul, and one without. It means that even though this slightly older generation was for all purposes identical to its offspring, that is they had the same level of conscious, were able to feel the same emotions etc. they didn't have a chance to be saved because of their lack of soul. But how could all loving and omnipotent god allow such situation to even take place? I don't know. To me it strongly indicates absence of omnibenvolent creator. =Conclusion=My opponent says that he doesn't believe in god so I don't expect him to defend any particular religion here, arguments above are strong objections against god of Abraham, however if Pro isn't going to defend it then well, they are useless. For example there may be omnibenevolent god who saves all living things and there may be god who possess all above mentioned properties, yet didn't reveal himself to us. However we still wait for some arguments to support a general idea, that any god exists at all.