A God Exist

For those who did not read what my opponent has stated, he has pretty much just said this:[P1] When people blame good things on god, that god is proven to exist. [P2] People have blamed good things on their god(s). [Conclusion] A god exists. Now, P1 is flawed here beyond explination. I can blame finding my shoes on a leperachan, but that does not mean that the leperachan exists. Just because something can be an explination, doesn't mean "The only logical explanation is that an outside force, such as a "god", has been pleased and was able to help you. " Therefore, PRO still has not provided me with evidence that "The only logical explination" is that a god exists. He also says this:[P1] If a peoples have based their religion on real world things (i. e. stars, planets, constillations), then their religion is ture. [P2] Peoples have based their religion on real world things. [Conclusion] Their religion is true. Again, P1 is flawed. If I blame my assumption that a leperachan did give me my shoes on a pair of little green trousers I find in my closet, I might get a little suspicious, but in all reality its probably just my dormmate just messing with me. Therefore, PRO still has not provided me with evidence that "The only logical explination" is that a god exists. Arguments against religion in general:EXISTANCE OF MULTIPLE RELIGIONS:[P1] If multiple religions exist, then either any god(s) does not exist or is not doing a good job reigining over human kind, in which case we should not call him god. [P2] Multiple religions exist. [Conclusion] Either any god(s) does not exist or is not doing a good job reigning over human kind, in which case we should not call him god. THE LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR RELIGION:[P1] If observations suggest strongly something is true, then it becomes more than just a claim. [P2] No scientific observations have ever suggested any religion is true. [Conclusion] Religion cannot be held as anything more than a claim. GOD MUST BE EITHER EVERYTHING OR NOTHING[P1] If a god creates and reigns humanity, then there is a reason he created us and wants us to do something for him. [P2] My opponent is arguing that a god created us and is reigning over us. [C1] The god has a reason for creating us and expects something of us for his benefit. [P1] If a god has a reason for creating us and expects something of us for his benefit, then he will want to reward those who live to do his bidding. [P2] {C1} A god has a reason for creating us and expects something of us for his benefit. [C2] Therefore, he will want to reward those who live to do his bidding. [P1] If a god rewards those who live to do his bidding, he will also both/either punish those who do not do his bidding or reward people differently. [P2] {C2} The god will want to reward those who live to do his bidding. [C3] Therefore, he will also both/either punish who do not do his bidding or reward people differently. [P1] If god will both/either punish those who do his bidding or reward people differently, then a god is not omnibenelovent. [P2] {C3} A god will both/either punish those who do his bidding or reward people differently. [C4] A god is not omnibenelovent. [P1] If god is not omnibenelovent, then he created evil. [P2] {C4} A god is not omnibenelovent. [C5] A god created evil. [P1] If a god created evil, because evil is defined in almost all religious texts as "Without god", a god created something that was outside of his realm of capability, and therefore cannot exist or is everything at the same time, in which case life is meaningless. [P2] {C5} A god created evil. [C6] A god cannot exist or is everything at the same time. Like I said before, I'm not going to be taking this very seriously.