God is the Most Logical Conclusion for our Existence

"1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and pure. 2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being could eliminate evil. 3. Evil exists 4. Therefore, God does not exist. Problems: There is a missing piece to this argument that is necessary. The argument must be rearranged thusly: 1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. 2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being could eliminate evil. 3. Evil exists 4. God can have no good reason to allow evil to exist. 5. Therefore, God does not exist. This is the only way the argument could properly work. If God has morally sufficient reasons for the existence of evil, however, then God can exist. Refutation: God gave us free will to prevent the world from being a world full of robot-play things whose lives have already been planned out. Since we have this free will, we can deny that God is responsible for sin. He did not program us like robots. Instead, we freely choose to create evil in the world. If he eliminated this free will, however, we would all be good. The problem? We are now robot-playthings of no value. Our actions would have no meaning, and God would have robbed us of our opportunities to be our heroic best." Sure, we can take this is as a common argument. And like Pro has shown us, it gets a common response. refutation to the refutation to the point I never made: God gives us limited free will: Let's this building example. One can: Put there hand on the building Paint the building Walk into the building But one cannot: Jump over the building Lift the building with there bare hands Turn the building into a giant pink fluffy Unicorn with feathers. If god have us free will, why am I not able to do the things my will desires? That is also not the argument I use by the way. Usually one would use pain and suffering as evil. So: God is supposedly pure, all powerful, and omniscient. If god was all powerful, he would be able to destroy evil. If god was pure, god would have the desire to destroy evil. If god was omniscient, then he would know where to find evil. Evil exists. Because evil exists, god is ether not omniscient, not all powerful, and/or not pure. If someone does not meet all of the traits then it is not god. No one meets all these traits, because if they did, evil would not exist. There is no god. As for your other "Refutations, I'm not actually going to address them because it would take to much room, and I never brought them up. Seeing as I have never spoken these words or even wrote down most of the things he said, I hold no responsibility to refute his refutations to arguments I never made. I ask voters not to count it as a concession. I will address your last arguments however, about how the only thing that could have caused the universe is god. You may have to skim though your book a bit. LA Mitchels theory of Simultanious Causation: Atoms a b and c, all having casual explanation, simultaniously cause each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A, the idea is that the cause and effect are simultanious. Why accept god over simultanious causation? The universe's precision can also be explained. The multiverse: This is the idea that we actually have multiple universes, rather than just one. Many of them are created, with different combinations. One day of course, we had perfect conditions for our life. This would explain how exact the universe is. Although it really isn't perfect for our life, considering the end of the world will happen in about a billion years. Also, why assume we can only have life in Carbon Based forms? Maybe if the universe was different, we could have a different life form arise. [1] In order to prove there is a God, there has to be a need for a God [2] There is no need for a God in order to explain the mechanics within the universe [3] Therefore there is probably no God. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. We actually have Pro doing nothing to prove god here, all he attempts to do is reference some book for random arguments I never made. Now seeing as this is the Catholic God, I shall offer some You-Tube video's that are going to target the bible. Brace yourself. http://m.youtube.com... http://m.youtube.com... Pro's argument that we need god has been refuted. Thank you!