A Monotheistic God Probably Does Not Exist

"While some good can come out of tragedy, it's rarely enough to make up for the loss. It's hard to imagine that such a scheme would actually work" This quote gives away the entire argument. First of all, how does pro know? How can pro make the claim that "its rarely enough to make up for the loss"? This statement can ONLY BE MADE on the condition that pro knows what good is brought out of the evil or not brought out of the evil. Pro has no way of knowing how all things play out for everyone in the end and therefore cannot make the claim "its rarely enough to make up for the loss." Secondly he says "its hard to imagine that such a scheme would actually work." Well maybe pro's imagination is limited. Or maybe the problem is that even if WE cannot SEE how it would work, it does not follow that it necessarily CANNOT work. Pro goes on to elaborate on the position. The point still stands, even if WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC GOOD is brought out of evil, it does not follow that there is NO GOOD that God MIGHT or CAN bring out of that evil. Paradoxes: Pro, you keep restating. I know what you said, I object to it because a limitation on infinite power is itself a self contradiction. Because of that, it is not a thing itself, it is not a coherent concept. You might as well ask God to create a asdjkflasdj; because the concept of a limit on infinite power and asdjkflasdj; are on par with each other in that they are meaningless concepts...that's the point Now, to affirming my argument: 1) Physics shows certain things do not have a determinist cause. It does not follow that they have no cause whatsoever. At the very least (if you take this line of philosophical reasoning which is I must say dubious...) we can admit that the laws of physics themselves, or the substances they govern function as causes or explanations (explanation might be a better word to avoid the confusion that might arise if we use cause...cause is of course accurate and hence I used it in my argument but sometimes people think this means DETERMINIST cause, which it does not at all!) Physics has not shown things are uncaused but caused in a less than determined manner. 2) "My response: This statement makes no sense. Perhaps you could explain it better, because it seems contradictory." Okay I'll explain. The being I hope to demonstrate by my arguments has traits (intelligence, infinity, power, etc.) that the 3 religions you mention all believe God has (Judaism and Islam and Christianity all hold ...at least in general....that God has these or similar traits). However, the being I argue for, even if I am correct, does not entail that Christianity, Judaism, or Islam is true. This being fits in, although does not necessarily lead us to believe one of these 3 is true. 3) "Who caused God" as it is to postulate a creation from God, so please answer the question." Why would God need a cause? According to my argument, contingent things need a cause. According to my argument, if it is sound, there is a necessary being which need not have a cause. Further, I explained why it probably has certain traits in my first post. I say it is reasonable to refer to this being as God. I don't care so much about what it is called though. More importantly, the necessary being needs no cause. 4) "Can I make another assumption about your soon to be assumption, that this something is God and he is necessary? This may work philosophically in some ways, even though your syllogism has failed, but there is no empirical proof that the potential something is the God of monotheistic religions anyways." Um...I don't care if we call it God or Entity X. The point is that my argument (which hasn't failed as I explained) shows that a necessary being exists. I have further explained why this being has certain traits (unique, infinite, intellect, power, simplicity, etc.). If the arguments succeed (which I admit takes more work than a simple debate.org post) then it follows that 1 necessary infinitely simple, powerful, intelligible, immaterial, etc. being exists. Call it what you want, I think atheism doesn't have much of a leg to stand on anymore... (TRUE it does not prove Judaism, Christianity, or Islam specifically--but it shows a God as believed by these religions exists) 5) My argument has nothing to do with the beginning but everything to do with a necessarily existent being that is the cause of all things.