An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

Thank you so much for this answer. It's very well-organized, which I greatly appreciate.As I believe is best practice, I will attempt to go through the C.R.I.M.E.S. arguments one-by-one. First, however, I'd like to explain my issue with a general belief in God, particularly as described here, as well as the cosmological argument.If you're saying that the universe must have been created by God, where did God come from?I define the cosmological argument as "an argument for the existence of God that claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e., are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being that exists independently or necessarily." There are 3 fundamental problems with this argument, first described by Hume: Structure - I disagree with the assumption that existent things need reasons for their existence. Just because every link in the cause-and-effect chain that followed the Big Bang has a cause, that doesn't mean the chain itself has a cause. As an example, consider a hypothetical collection of 20 hydrogen atoms. Suppose we find an explanation for each individual atom. It shouldn't stand to reason that we need an explanation for the whole collection. This is called the fallacy of composition made famous by Russell who stated that just because every man has a mother, it doesn't mean there is a mother of the human race. Causality - To speak about the origin of the universe is to attempt to delve beyond the entire scope of understanding, as we know it, as well as observation. This is completely uncharted and unavailable territory. The entire nature of empiricism is founded in our ability to take observations and use them to explain the causes of things. However, this is only possible for particular aspects of the universe. Necessity - Any being that exists could also not exist and there is "not a contradiction implied in conceiving its non-existence, but this is exactly what would have to be the case, if its existence were necessary." From there, we can see that the term 'necessary being' is totally non-sensical from an a posteriori sense. As Hume said, "All existentialist propositions are synthetic." C - CreationIt is nice to hear that you believe in the Big Bang since it is well-established scientific fact at this point. Also, I agree that the Big Bang had a "beginning". I also agree that NASA's Hubble telescope has made an important observation, though the more important part is its place in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. In all spontaneous processes, the total entropy always increases and the process is irreversible (Atkins and de Paula). Since you invoke Stephen Hawking as part of your argument, let's see some of the other things he says on this topic: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." Beyond that, to your point about asking what came before the Big Bang, I would first urge you to learn a bit about spacetime in order to best understand my thoughts on what came before the Big Bang, which coincidentally came from Hawking (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Once you understand that space and time are interwoven, you'll see that one cannot and does not exist without the other. Gravity is not just a warping of space, but a warping of spacetime. This is why light that has to pass by a massive body will take additional time to reach an observer as compared to the time it would take had there not been such a body.With this, you can try to rewind the universe back to its beginnings 13.8 billion years ago when it was infinitely small and infinitely dense. It doesn't really make sense to use a word like "before" when asking what there was "prior" to the Big Bang's occurrence because time itself did not exist. Without the existence of time, a word like "before" is completely meaningless and thus not relevant to any discussion. As Hawking put it, "Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."R - ReasonThere is absolutely no reason to decouple evolution and reason. Rather, we should be looking at how humans evolved to develop and use reason. Here are the thoughts of some pre eminent scholars: "(Humans evolved reason because) reasoning contributes to the effectiveness and reliability of communication by enabling communicators to argue for their claim and..." - Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber "Of all the faculties of the human mind...Reason stands at the summit. The more the habits of any particular animal are studied by a naturalist, the more he attributes to reason and the less to unlearnt instincts..." - Charles Darwin "The foundations of logical theory are biological." - William S. Cooper But, that is not the most glaring issue with this argument. You say that "if evolution is real, you cannot justify reason." But then you go on and use classic reasoning and logic to prove your point. This is a classic example of the logical fallacy, begging the question. You are stating that a given conclusion can't be true by very virtue of the fact that your conclusion is correct.Beyond that, this whole line of thinking disregards biochemical and neuroanatomical facts. It's a basic tenet of chemistry that multiple constituent parts can form something completely different. Just like a collection of transistors can be arranged to create a digital environment, so too can brain cells fuse together to give rise to consciousness.Yes, evolution is real and yes we are just molecular machines. I don't know if I see why this means we shouldn't trust "ANY" of our thoughts. We trust the outputs of our calculators when we type "2+2=" and we trust our computers when they tell us that Donald Trump is our current president. How is it different to trust the molecular computers in our heads?I - InformationI agree with the sentiment, "look at the data." You ask about the hypothetical of spilling out the cereal. This couldn't be a more perfect illustration of trap Creationists get caught in. If I saw my cereal knocked over as such, I would never for a nanosecond think, "that is intelligent design from an intelligent mind." Rather, I would think, "wow, what an unlikely occurrence, I wonder what the probability of such an occurrence is." I would then calculate the actual odds of this happening. Let's remove spaces (let me know if you'd like a comment with them included). For any given message with one specific character out of a possible 27 occurring for each of the 21 characters, the probability of a specific message would equal (1/27)^21 = 8.7E-31. Improbable? Sure. Calculably possible? Yup! You may be saying, "BertrandsTeapot, what if the alphabet cereal spilled out a number of characters that wasn't 21?" This would be a valid question. Ideally, we'd run a Monte Carlo simulation here. I think N = 10,000 would suffice. Or, we could calculate this probability using the power set based on the number of cereal pieces in the bowl. Still calculably possible? You bet! A response to a lot of your incredulity may be indulged by the Infinite Monkey Theorem, which states that a monkey hitting keys on a keyboard at random for an infinite amount of time will absolutely, 100% type the complete works of William Shakespeare (eventually). Saying that "life and information seem to need an intelligent cause" is not a good reason for assuming a Creationism standpoint. I never said Richard Dawkins was a source of authority here.M - Morality"...saying killing and torturing humans is just an opinion." That sentence doesn't make any sense in English. Did you mean "...humans is bad is...". You claim that since without God there would be no objective morality, there must be a God. I never said there was such thing as objective morality, though, so this entire point should be disregarded.E - Evil"We know how it works and it's so precise." Can you please elaborate as to our knowing exactly how God works in his infinite precision?First of all, I never claimed there was such a thing as objective evil. Second, you spent all this time telling about dualist aspects of the universe, somehow arriving at the conclusion that there must be a God. Without invoking one of your other arguments, there is no way this will stand on its own. This should also be disregarded until another argument is accepted. S - ScienceLet's just agree not to use the phrase, "do science" anymore. It helps no one.Please explain "science is against evolution and atheism." I don't have enough characters remaining to list just 0.001% of the scholarly articles and science journals that say the opposite. You reference that quote of Einstein's, which I love as well. I agree, the world is all comprehensible. You know what isn't? God. Where did he come from? Why does he exist? The inability to answer these questions shows exactly why your argument is invalid. I can't tell if you're serious when you say that the existence of orderly natural laws, logic, and reason are evidence of God and can't be "explained by evolution or atheism." What untrustworthy, unethical scientists are you referring to in this next point? "Honesty is not a molecule, it's a human value." Well, that's just plain silly.I feel I have sufficiently defeated each of Con's arguments, in one or multiple ways. There were also a few that completely didn't apply. Looking forward to the next round!