The Existence of God is unlikely

I will argue that the existence of God, though logically possible, is very unlikely on both a priori and evidential grounds. God is here defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immaterial personal being. The following arguments support my position: The Argument from Ordered Complexity 1. Ordered complexity requires an explanation. "Ordered complexity" means a system composed of several parts that are arranged in such a way as to produce some specific function that is otherwise improbable. An example is your TV: There are many parts which are arranged in such a way as to produce a specific function, and that function is highly unlikely to occur from a random arrangement of parts. Such complexity is very improbable unless it was brought about by something such as an intelligent designer or evolution by natural selection, and so we say these things require explanation. 2. God is a being of ordered complexity. A being that is conscious (as a personal being is by definition) and can create must be very complex because consciousness and creativity only come about through a series of very specific mental steps. This will become a little more clear with the following quote: "To see that consciousness itself is complex, consider that consciousness requires the ability to store and access information that is linked together in many intricate ways as well as the ability to process that information and to reason. The web of intricately interconnected data that consciousness requires is extremely complex. One measure of the complexity of a system is the logarithm of the number of states of the system. Applied to a conscious system, this measure of complexity is proportional to the number of pieces of data that the conscious system knows times the degree of interconnectedness in the data. There are three interesting things to note here: 1) this measure of complexity is very large if a large amount of data is accessible; 2) the interconnectedness of data that consciousness requires greatly increases the complexity; and 3) for an omniscient being, this measure of the being's complexity diverges." Source: http://freethought.freeservers.com... 3. Therefore, God requires an explanation. 4. But God does not and could not have an explanation (such as being the result of an evolutionary process or the work of a higher designer). 5. Therefore, God probably does not exist. The Argument from Evil 1. An omnipotent being has the power to stop the evil and suffering in the world. This is true by definition (an all powerful being has ALL powers, including the power to prevent evil). 2. An omnibenevolent being would want to stop evil and suffering, and would do whatever it could to minimize evil and suffering in the world. Also true by definition. An all-good being is defined as a being that only performs (or desires to perform) good acts and does so whenever given the opportunity, because obviously performing a good act is better than simply desiring to do a good act if one has opportunity to do it. Since getting rid of evil is obviously a good act, an omnibenevolent being would get rid of as much evil as it could. 3. An omniscient being would know about all the evil in the world. 4. If a being exists which has the power to destroy evil, the will to destroy evil (which an omnibenevolent being would have), and knows evil exists, then it will destroy that evil. 5. Evil Exists. 6. Therefore, an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being cannot exist, and since God is defined as such a being, God cannot exist. Further comment: I do not claim that these premises and the deductions made thereof are known to be true with 100% certainity. However, I do claim that these premises and the deductions I've made from there are more plausible than any doubts we may throw at them, and that is all I need in order to make a successful argument against the existence of God. The Argument from the Simplicity of Metaphysical Naturalism 1. The principle of parsimony tells us that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably correct. 2. The hypothesis that only the natural world exists is simpler than the hypothesis that a natural AND supernatural world exist. 3. I contend that Naturalism is equal or greater than Supernaturalism in terms of explanatory scope and power. Thus, "all things are equal" between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. 4. Since Naturalism is the simpler explanation, and it is not in any deficient to Supernaturalism, We can infer that Naturalism is probably correct. 5. Naturalism (only the natural world exists) logically entails that no supernatural beings exist. 6. God is a supernatural being. 7. Therefore, since Naturalism is probably true, God probably does not exist because Naturalism precludes his existence.