God most likely does NOT exist

1) Like said: "1) "Albert Einstein proved the big bang theory and thus no God" (Your straw-man of my position) At to: 2) Albert Einstein is defending the position that the Big Bang theory (A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature) is "real" according to your brief presentation of his case. (My actual position)" Please comprehend. Both are different from each other. 2) Extreme precision has the following choices: 1. God tuned the constants of nature 2. If the values of the constants were very different, life would not have evolved, so physicists would not have evolved to wonder why the constants of nature are what they are. This idea has led to the postulate that we live in just one of vastly many universes, a "megaverse", the constants of nature have different values in different universes, and we happen to be lucky enough to be in a universe with the "right" values of the constants of nature. This view is called "The Weak Anthropic Princiiple." The term, "Anthropic" stands for the fact that we live in a universe where life and physicists could evolve. A fine discussion of this view is in Leonard Susskind"s The Cosmic Landscape. 3. Our one universe somehow evolved the values of its constants, and perhaps its very laws, such that the universe we live in is the only universe and is complex. I want this view to be true. For it to be true, there must be processes by which the laws and the values can both evolve. I hope to discuss this in later blogs. 3) Definitely. It was very improbable existence of an individual human being or animal. Life is meaningless (Unless, you have set a goal (esp. Expedition, Discovery, etc.)) for yourself to achieve. 4) 1) Like said, I simply did not hold the belief that an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omscient, monotheistic God exists until evidence is presented proportional to the claim. You accepted this particular debate. So therefore, you claim that you have so. 2) Yeah. However, this is when I refrain from doing so (As other specific arguments presented remain unscathed). 3) "God's goodness" You have never refuted this philosophical argument. You theists conceive the supreme being who created and rules the universe and is the source to all moral authority as omnibenevolent. Yet when we occassionally choose to "sin", he does not intervene. "Free Will" Theists claim that: "God made the future" TheAmazingAtheist1, defining "God" Therefore, in that case, free will doesn't exist. Argument 4 It definitely could include limitations. My definition was mediocre and vague. Man (esp. Emperor, President, etc.) do in fact grant freedom. Therefore, it is relative. They established their OWN laws of conduct for treatment equality issues and to maintain control over their land. I am in fact accepting the possibility of God's existence. In fact, I was opposing against someone who believes that God's existence is intrinsically and scientifically impossible. I will proceed to your up-coming 2 points: Response 1 Everything is definitely relative. Absolutes don't exist. Our life could possibly be a simulation, a false illusion, in other words, albeit a very persistent one. According to theism, God is defined solely as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions who created EVERYTHING. Therefore, he developed the future. Therefore, free will doesn't exist. He chose for us. Response 2 I have come to the conclusion that spouting your religious convictions, condemning other beliefs, and forcing your belief against someone else is "wrong". You often reluctantly acknowledge a belief and present evidence proportional to your claim, and yet, it is refuted. You BELIEVE that he intervenes because of the Bible (When either he manifested himself in physical form through Jesus Christ, or he intervened throughout). I reject his existence. Therefore, I don't believe in the Bible. Therefore, I don't believe he intervenes. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Extra presentation(s): 1) If a supreme being is omnipotent, then he has the ability to put another (in certain other religions) superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity and then challenge him to an arm wrestle. Neither would beat each other. Therefore, both are not omnipotent. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. 2) If he is both omipotent and omnibenevolent (All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. Its use is often with regards to the divine triad, whereby a deity is described to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. This triad is used especially with the Christian god, Yahweh), why does he let false convictions, then afterwards death penalty imposal, etc. pass by? That does not build character. That does not strengthen and establish you as a human being. You simply pass away. Therefore, that God isn't omnibenevolent.