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

You ask an excellent question. "Where did God come from?" The God of the Bible is not affected by time, space, and matter. If He was, he wouldn't be God, because then he would have limits. Space, time, and matter is a continuum. They have to come to existence at the same time. So, whatever caused these forces, must be outside of space, time, and matter. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. God is not physical. If you're timeless, do you have a beginning? No. God always existed because He is outside space, matter, and time. He created the continuum. Structure - You say that there's things that don't need reasons for their existence. Well, first of all, that would be known as God. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the hydrogen example though. Perhaps I'm not understanding it. But all things need an origin and a beginning. Matter, space, and time. Solid, liquid, and gas. Height, length, width. Past, present, future. You say that human race doesn't necessarily need a mother, but there would be no human race unless there was a beginning. Human race has origins. Causality - BertrandsTeapot, I am not making these arguments from things we don't know, rather from things we do know. In fact, we will never find a natural cause for the Big Bang, because again, matter, space, and time had a beginning. If they had a beginning, whatever started them, cannot be neither of those things. We don't need to observe the rest of the universe because we understand how things within it do. To say there's something out there that might explain something we yet don't know is pure faith, for now. Necessity - God is necessary because if the cause is outside of space, matter, and time, God cannot be those things. God must also be powerful, to create something out of nothing, intelligent, to create the universe with such precision, and personal, to choose to create, because what's stopping him or forcing him to create if there's nothing. C - Creation You mention the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics. However, this is just an idealization. Hubble discovered that the radiation afterglow is cooling down. And the universe is not an isolated system, in fact, there are no known 100% isolated universes. The idea that heat death will happen is very respected too. It is also possible that the entropy production can cease. In fact, I would say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports my argument, as we are running down of usable energy. Useful energy, into less useful energy. Many scientists and atheists point out that the Big Bang could've started with gravity and hot density coming to one point. But that only creates more questions that answers. If that's the case, where did the gravity come from in the first place? I'll be fair by not using the word "before" to reference before the creation of all things. But something needs to start it either way, they can't just be infinite. Allow me to further support my point. I will now provide the acronym S.U.R.G.E. S " Second Law of Thermodynamics: This explains that the universe is running down of usable energy. As time goes on, energy goes down. One day the sun will burn out. What does this show? The universe had a beginning. If the universe was infinite, the sun would always have energy; however, we know that this is not the case because all things wear down. U " Universe is expanding: Again, when Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe is expanding, it also noticed how all the galaxies slowly moved away from us. If you reverse that image and watch it backwards, we could see how they all go into one point. This is where time, space, and matter go to 0. Once, the universe was nothing, and to this day scientists still believe that the universe came from a great explosion. R " Radiation Afterglow: As mentioned before, the Hubble found radiation from the explosion in the universe cooling down, as two scientists discovered it by accident. If heat is cooling down, something must"ve heated it up. These two scientists won Nobel Prizes in 1978. G " Great Galaxy Seeds: These are very fine temperature variations in the radiation afterglow that allow the galaxies to form. E " Einstein"s General Relativity: Einstein knew that space, time, and matter were correlative, and came into existence together. At some point, it all had a beginning. In fact, Einstein wasn"t the only one who understood this idea. These are some scientists who also won Noble Prizes for finding evidence supporting this idea: Arno Penzias ("The best data we have, concerning the Big Bang, are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole."), Robert Wilson ("Certainly there was something that set it all off" I can"t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis."), George Smoot ("There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.") R - Reason Reason is immaterial. Evolution does not explain reason because it does not care about order, and does not create beyond immaterial. How could an unintelligent process create an intelligent product. It doesn't quite make sense. You quote Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, and they say "...because reasoning contributes to the effectiveness and reliability of communication..." But evolution does NOT care about effectiveness and reliability of anything. It says what survives, not what ought to survive. It merely creates randomly, it does not care about order. Why would it care about effectiveness? It has no mind, it just reacts and that's it. The moment you say evolution MEANT to create reason and mind, you're saying it had to be intelligent to order and CARE. Why do animals care about reason if evolution doesn't care? Why do they attribute more to reason? We are making a hypothetical world in which evolution is real. I say we have reason because it is an immaterial ability that we have which was given by God because He is beyond all nature and matter. You then mention that immaterial matter can create a digital realm. Like a router to create WiFi I agree. Here's the problem, not only our bodies are made up of living cells, but there there would be no router unless it was created by someONE, because it needs a mind in order to be created. Not a random process like evolution. Evolution doesn't create brain and mind because it is random. Chips in a computer don't come up by themselves and randomly. If evolution is real and we are molecular machines, then we don't reason, we react. Because matter reacts, it doesn't think. Evolution doesn't have a mind, it just creates randomly. There would be no calculators unless a mind made them. Evolution doesn't create calculators. To say that the brain is created by evolution is to say that routers were created randomly. I - Information BertrandsTeapot, chance is not a force, it is a mathematical probability. There is no power or force out there known as "chance". It all has a cause. To believe that the message DNA came by "random forces" is completely illogical. More than that, there's no evidence supporting the idea that a sand castle can be created by the ocean waves by "chance", because when you look at a sand castle, you know it was created by minds. People, mind you. Intelligent design (castle) by intelligent mind (person). Because when an acorn seed falls from a tree does it sit there and think "alright, what do I have to do here to become an acorn tree? I guess I'll just trust in chance and hope it works" No, it has the message of DNA. I guess we just live in the universe where DNA, messages, sand castles, computers, routers, reason, and minds just came from random forces. Let's us see how the almost impossible mathematical probability happens all the time around us. To believe everything came from "chance" would need a lot of faith on your part, BertrandsTeapot. M - Morality If there's no objective morality, then it is all a matter of opinions. If evolution is real, then Hitler wasn't really wrong. In fact, he was doing the exact right thing. If we're building our way up the ladder of evolution, then when Hitler killed the gypsies, gays, and Jews, he was just evolving and stepping higher from all the lower beings. There either is objective morality, or not. If you agree with me, you know that there's a standard and a lawgiver outside of humanity we should all follow. That is known as God. E - Evil By "we know how it works and it's so precise" I meant that the world we live in is absolutely understandable by us, and we can draw conclusions that explain it with great precision. Second, I don't see why objective evil doesn't point to God. You know there's objective evil, or not. Why do you say that this argument should be disregarded? It is a point that further proves the existence of a theistic God, which is what we're discussing about here. S - Science I made a mistake with Einstein's quote. It is incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible. Unethical scientists like Josef Mangele. Which scientist is more moral? Einstein or Mengele? Science won't tell you. Science explains why things harm, not if you should harm. You need to interpret the data. Atheism and evolution won't tell you because they can't explain the immaterial realm. You also have to import a moral standard to come to a conclusion. Of course the idea of putting honesty in a test tube is stupid. That's the point. It's not material. You must believe in an immaterial realm with (reason, free will, morality, gravity, causality, etc...) because atheism and evolution cannot explain those things because these cannot be seen in the physical realm. So you must believe that there's something outside of humanity to explain these things or give up your common sense. I don't have any space left, but I think I talked about almost everything