It is likely that a God or gods exist

God - "the greatest being that can be conceived"ArgumentsOmnipotence ParadoxGod possesses the following intrinsic maximums: omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. The intentions of this argument is to convey that one specific attribute of God's is sophistry. If I successfully do this, it demonstrates that the concept of God is incoherent. If I do this, my burden of proof is fulfilled. The attribute I intend to attack is specifically "omnipotence". Omnipotence is defined as "almighty or infinite in power". (1)My argument will assume the following logical format:P1: God is defined as possessing omnipotenceP2: Omnipotence is sophistryP3: If omnipotence is sophistry then God is sophistryP4: Omnipotence is sophistry, so God is sophistryP5: God is sophistryC: Therefore, God is sophistryPremise one: Pro defined God as having omnipotencePremise two:If God has omnipotence, (unlimited power) then God would be able to create another deity that is more powerful than God. If God can do this, then this would violate the definition of "God", since God is the most superior. If God cannot do this, then God is limited by logic - if God is limited by logic, then God does not truly have unlimited power. Therefore, the concept of omnipotence is sophistry.Premise three:If God is defined as having omnipotence, and the concept of omnipotence is sophistry, then the concept of God is sophistry.Premise four:God has omnipotence, so God is sophistry.Premise five:A deduction of the premises infers that God is sophistry.Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and the argument is sound - God is sophistry.The Argument from Atemporal MindsThe intentions of this argument is to convey that, minds cannot exist in a timeless place. If God does not have/is a mind, then God would not have omniscience. Omniscience is defined as: "infinite knowledge". (2)This argument assumes the following logical format:P1: God exists transcendentlyP2: If God exists transcendently, then God does not exist within space-timeP3: God is/has a mindP4: If God transcendent, then God's mind is atemporalP5: If God's mind is atemporal, then God's mind cannot existP6: If God's mind cannot exist, then God cannot existC: God cannot existPremise one:Space-time exists within the universe. If God created the universe, then God cannot logically exist within the universe. Therefore, God must transcend space-time.Premise two:Premise two is valid as long as premise one is valid. Premise three:If God exists, God must be/have a mind, because knowledge is contingent upon a mind.Premise four:Temporal minds imply a mind that exist within space-time. Since God exists outside space-time, the implication is reversed.Premise five:Minds imply an interaction in time, since minds include processes. Processes infer a finite amount of time, however, time is non-existent in a timeless place... If God's mind is atemporal, then God's mind cannot involve processes. Therefore, a timeless mind, is sophistry. If God is/has a mind, then God is sophistry.Premise six:Premise six is valid as long as premise five is valid.Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and the argument is sound.Reverse Modal Ontological ArgumentP1:It is possible that a maximally great being does not exists.P2:If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.P3:If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.P4:If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.C: Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.In a logical format:P1) ◊(∃x) (Mx)P2) ◊(~∃x) (~Mx) ⊃ (◊(~∃x) (~Mx))P3) ◊(~∃x) (~Mx)⊃ (~∃x) (~Mx)P4) (~∃x) (~Mx) ⊃ (~∃x) (~Mx)P5) (~∃x) (~Mx) ⊃ (~∃x) (~Mx)C) ∴ (~∃x) (Mx)Premise one:Modal logic dictates that it is possible for MOA to not exist. To avoid a misconception is epistemic modalities, possibly does not relate to "I could possibly win the lottery tomorrow", it denotes truth in at least one possible world. Possible worlds does not relate to a multiverse of sorts; it relates to hypothetical plausibilities of how our actuality (our world) could have been. For example, in a hypothetical world, Planck's Constant could be different. However, some aspects of actuality are tautological (must be true throughout all possible worlds; necessarily true). Tautologies include: rules of logic i.e. all bachelors are unmarried. Mathematical aspects like "2 + 2 = 4" are tautological as well. For clarification, necessarily true means true throughout all possible worlds. It is not breaking any of the tautologies aforementioned to postulate that the non-existence of God could occur in at least one possible world, since the concept is coherent. The rest of the argument postulates that non-existence is necessary.Premise two-five:This is tautologicalSince the conclusion logically follows from the premises, then the argument is sound.Refutations:KCAP1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existenceThis is a very inductive premise, which affirms that premise one is probably the case. This primae facie assertion lacks justification. Pro attempts to justify the first premise with an appeal to intuition fallacy. He states that ex nihilio is impossible, but gives no justification for it, Until Pro provides evidence, beyond a primae facie posteriori, premise one lacks soundness.P2: The universe began to existPro validates premise two under false scientific pretenses - Pro states "According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe began approximately 13.7 billion years ago." This is a misconception - space-time expanded 13.8 billion years ago. Pro infers that the Big Bang Theory postulates ex nihilio - creation from nothing. However, ex nihilio has never been scientifically proven. Pro then proposes entropy always increases over time... This is fine. But I state that this began occurred 13.8 billion years ago, not an infinite time ago. The contingencies of entropy didn't exist until after rapid inflation which occurred 13.8 billion years ago - through the Big Bang. The universe existed before this time, however the contingencies of entropy was created after the Big Bang. For this reason, entropy has not been increasing for an infinite amount of time. Therefore, Pro's assertion does not invalidate an infinite universe.Pro then tries to debunk the concept of infinity by stating that it is "metaphysically impossible" - this is intuition that is relative to each person. An oxymoron must be demonstrated to deem the concept of infinity incoherent.Even if Pro finds a way to refute my contentions, his argument only inductively hints that a creator must exist. Since this is only an inductive argument, a deductive argument would take precedence.Teleological ArgumentPro states that "Physicists commonly agree that the universe is "fine-tuned" for the conditions of life." This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Teleology is relative. Pro must devise a quantifiable method to show what is more fine-tuned than something else. Until Pro does this, the cogency of this premise is not shown.This is an inductive argument, and as I have said deductive arguments assume greater precedence than inductive arguments. Therefore, is my arguments are not refuted, I need not refute an inductive argument.Religious ExperiencesBelief does not entail necessary metaphysical existence. The role can be reversed - some people do not feel an "inner presence of a divine being". Opinions are as valid as each other - the argument is moot."So my opponent must provide a naturalistic explanation for religious experience in order to give the atheistic worldview any credibility at all."This is moving the goalposts.Out of characters.