There is no logical proof for the existance of God.

Problems with part 2) My only solution to the "existing in reality is greater than existing in thought" problem is that by existing in reality, god can also still exist in thought and so he would have more attributes than shoudld he exist in thought alone. And a being with more attributes is greater than a being with less attributes. So, I'm measuring "greatness" by 'having more attributes', I guess, not so much in a good vs bad sense of the word. Problems with Part 1) Other than just definition issues on "greatness" (which I suppose I should have defined before I started using it), I would go with the argument of "god knows best", which of course doesn't really stand as much of an argument, so, I'd say it fails. And there's still the whole "bible was written by man" thing. While it's supposed to be 'the word of god' man is imperfect and could easily have miswritten it and if people are basing their actions off of flawed writings then it's not really God commanding said awful actions. But yeah, I'm focusing on greatness in the sense of having more attributes/quality. So, God would be infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. etc. While all other objects/people/creations are in someway lacking a quality, and so would be less than a god, making God the greatest being. ___________ On necessity. I would say that while "giant squirrels juggling the planets" isn't plausible, it's not impossible, as it can be imagined. As opposed to a circle-square, which cannot be imagined. But nature, squares are not circular and circles not edged, and so their can be no creation such as a circle square, even in the imagination, and when trying to imagine such an object, you can never actually think of a circle square. But one might be able to picture squirrels juggling planets. (That make sense, or a bit too much of a ramble?) As for being necessary vs unnecessary and which is greater. It would just seem (to me!) that an object that has to exist would be greater than an object that can not exist. But, I can't really think of any good reason (at the moment) while being necessary is greater than unnecessary. __________ It's true, there's nothing to compare our world againts. But, assuming their was a god, he would have the infinite knowledge available to him to create the most perfect world. (I mostly just tried to include the "earth sucks" solution in there because I here it argued alot. I find it to be a rather irritating argument as there are plenty of things that do not such as well. But, this solution for the condition of the earth only works once it has been accepted that there is a god. _____________ Okay. God would definitely be the most complex being. But, it is also important to note that he is a single being. By saying "god did it" we say all the universe is the result of one entity. While, evolution calls for us to posit many separate entities/means of going from single cell to multiple cells or even from lifeless chemicals floating around to the single celled organisms to begin with. One entity, even a complex entity, would be more simple than many different entities. The universe as a closed-system doesn't strike me as being all too complex (individual pieces are entirely different.) But there are laws of the universe that are followed everywhere (to our current knowledge) and even in nature one can almost always find a balance/symmetry. As by nature closed-systems tend to lean towards entropy, an outside being would be a useful addition to explain why we have order. Plus, the odds of life evolving on Earth without outside interference are rather staggering. (Though, that isn't to say it couldn't happen on it's own, or that say, Aliens had something to do with the matter, and not a god.) But, um, I also don't think that god and Evolution have to be exclusive of each other. There's no reason that a God could not just set in motion the events that could lead to evolutions over time until we get to be the creatures we are now. And then all those separate ‘entities' involved in the evolution process would all just be the single entity god. And even in matters outside of evolution, by putting the responsibility onto God, we are placing it to a single entity, which is a more simple solution than positing multiple entities/causes. (So, my argument for God being a more simple solution was definitely weak. It sounded better when I thought it. :/ I spelled "existence" wrong in my title. D: Don't I feel smart. ... the spell check just tried to get me to change "isn't" into "oceanfront" so I'm going to stop using it now, and going to blame any spelling errors on that instead of my own lack of spelling ability. >_> )