God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

Introduction God is necessary to explain the evidence we have. The universe literally had to be created it can't just be an accident. We are most likely a thought in the mind of God. There is only one thing an omniscient being wouldn't know. That thought is what would a world without him be like. God committed suicide, to get the answer to this question. Necessary Creator Any evidence for a simulated universe is evidence for a creator. Premise 1- The universe is literally a hologram. It's a projection of information from a flat surface. Nothing you see around you is real. Everything is just a holographic image projected from a flat surface. Science is just now starting to understand this. http://www.nature.com... Premise 2- Observer bias, helps prove we are in a simulated universe as well. Matter acts different when we don't pay attention to it. When we look away from matter it acts like a wave of possibility. However, when we observe matter it acts solid. We see it what It does and how it behaves. This short video may explain it better. http://m.youtube.com... Premise 3- The universe is pixelated. Just like a video game our universe is pixelated. We are clearly living in a simulated universe. http://www.naturalnews.com... Premise 4- Human DNA is really just computer code. It's a way to store information. It's not a natural process, but unnatural and the obvious creation of a higher being. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Modal Ontological argument Contrary to what my opponent thinks, I plan on using the Modal Ontological argument (here after referred to a MOA) to show that if a greatest possible being exists, that he is both omniscient and omnipotent and therefore perfect. In this case That MOA isn't derived from a definition but rests on the premise that a greatest possible being exists. So to restate Original MOA- First premises rests on A greatest possible being is possible. New MOA- First premise states that a greatest possible being definitely exists. As you can see the new MOA is valid and hard evidence that the creator is omnipotent and omniscient. Crash Course in Modal Logic Since my argument relies on modal logic, it is important that voters have at the least a very basic understanding of what modal logic is. Modal logic consists of 4 propositions. Possible Possibility deals with what is logically possible, not physically possible. If something isn't logically impossible, than it is logically possible. For example the Flying Spaghetti Monster is logically possible (as far as I can tell). So, it is possibly true. Impossible Something is impossible, if it can't logically exist. A triangle with 4 sides would be logically impossible and therefore couldn't exist. Necessary Necessary propositions are ones that must be true and can't be false. For example 2 2=4 and can't be false. Contingent Contingent possibilities are ones that could be true but could also be false. For example Obama is president of the United State is true, but it could have been false. So it is contingently true. Al Gore was not president of the United States is false, but it could have been true so it is contingently false. Possible Worlds Possible worlds is just another way of representing what is possible. If I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some possible worlds and not in others, than all I'm saying is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible. Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. (Borrowed from Alvin Plantiga and various other people) Premise 1 It is possible a greatest possible being exists. There are no logical absurdities here or contradictions. If my opponent can prove this premise wrong then the whole argument falls apart. So far in the history of mankind this has yet to be done so good luck. Premise 2 Necessarily, if a greatest possible being exists he must be omnipotent and omniscient. If it wasn't omnipotent and omniscient then a greater possible being could exist in some possible worlds. Premise 3 If the concept of the greatest possible being is coherent it exists in some possible worlds. Premise 4 If a greatest possible being exists in some possible worlds it exists in all possible worlds. It exists in all possible worlds because it is a necessary truth and not a contingent truth. Premise 5 If the greatest possible being exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world. Premise 6 The greatest possible being exists and by definition is God. It is omniscient and omnipotent. Logically Valid and Sound The argument is logically valid and has never been proven unsound. Here is the mathematical proof here: http://jwwartick.com... "Ax=df x is maximally great Bx=df x is maximally excellent W (Y) =df Y is a universal property Ox = df x is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect 1) `74; (W07;x)Ax pr 2) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) pr 3) `33;(x)(BxX35;Ox) pr 4) (Y)[W(Y) iff (`33;(W07;x)Yx W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Yx)] pr 5) (Y)[(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Yx iff `33;Zx)X35; W(Y)] pr 6) (W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx) 2, Existential Generalization 7) [(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx)X35;W(A)] 5, Universal Instantiation 8 ) W(A) iff (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 4, Universal Instantiation 9) W (A) 6, 7 Modus Ponens 10) W(A)X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 8, Equivalence, Simplification 11) `33;(W07;x)Ax (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 9, 10 Modus Ponens 12) ~`74;~~(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;(W07;x)Ax) 11, Communication, Modal Equivalence 13) `74;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)Ax Double Negation, Impl 14) `33;(W07;x)Ax 1, 13 Modus Ponens 15) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx) theorem 16) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 14, 15 Modus Ponens (twice) 17) `33;(x)(Bx X35; Ox) X35; (`33;(W07;x)`33;Bx X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Ox theorem 18) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 16, 17 Modus Ponens (twice) 19) (W07;x)`33;Bx 18, Necessity Elimination" Conclusion God exists and that provides the strongest premise for the MOA ever. I turn the floor over to my opponent and wish him good luck.