God Exists

A few standard Definitions from google: Omnipotent: (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything. Omnibenevolent: Adjective. (not comparable) All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. Omniscient: All knowing. You have not at all tried to prove the agreed definition of God exists. The maximally great being? Aristotle? That the best human may exist does not at all establish the definition of God here. You have also not even been able to establish that it is possible that a God exists. You’ve essentially tried to define god into existence. Here are a few absurd implications of your argument [1]: “ P(1)': Let use define a unicorn as an equine necessarily existent being with one horn. P(2)': It is possible that a necessarily existent unicorn exists. P(3)': If it is possible that a necessarily existing unicorn exists, then a necessarily existing unicorn exists in some possible worlds. P(4)': If a necessarily existing unicorn exists in some possible worlds, then a necessarily existing unicorn exists in all possible worlds. P(5)': If a necessarily existing unicorn exists in all possible worlds, then a necessarily existing unicorn exists in the actual world. P(6)': If a necessarily existing unicorn exists in the actual world, then a necessarily existing unicorn exists. C(1)': Therefore, a necessarily existing unicorn exists. Hercules is the greatest warrior in history. A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not. Other warriors exist and Hercules is greater than those. Therefore, Hercules existed. “ ‘Necessary and possible’ are two positive claims. These are thing you have to prove. You can’t just assert both of these true be true. From what we know about logical laws and science, there is not only no evidence that this particular god is not possible or necessary, there is evidence of the negation, that a god is not possible or necessary. These are direct negations of your premises. The God we’ve defined contradicts known facts . Evolution is one of the most well established theories established in science. Humans were not created. They evolved from Eukaryotic ancestors so your god has actually been disproven. All life was not created, as your definition requires, it evolved [3]. Matter was not created, it burst from a vacuum in a separation of matter and antimatter whose sum energy is the big bang event. You’re simply asserting that God is necessary for existence when science has reached a consensus that he is not. You’re asserting that those most qualified to answer this question are wrong without even citing sourcing. I’m sure you can find some theologians to cite but science is the field of inquiry needed to answer how life and matter came into existence and they have reached the firm consensus that God was in fact not necessary [4]. Even if we concluded that the Universe did not begin with the big bang there are many other options. You assumption that there was a single 3 omni god is absurd. Why not a collection of universe creating pixies? Why not being that Knew a lot, was powerful and caring but were not ‘maximally great’ in these three areas as our definition? Your god is just an assertion so far. You have provided no tangible evidence and the internal logic of your argument is inconsistent i.e. your argument is neither sound or valid. The problem of evil “ If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering [2].” This is a key problem with a god that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He would have created the pain suffering and injustice in the world. He can’t know about all the evil in the world, be powerful enough to change it then refuse if he is infinitely good. In fact, in light of this argument a god that is more of an evil jester is more likely. If s/he were all knowing in all powerful it’s clear god delights in suffering, evil and pain. God most certainly could not be all loving. Could god make a rock so heavy he couldn’t lift it? This is the classic rebuttal to omnipotence from George Carlin. It’s just impossible to be all powerful because it is innately contradictory There are many examples of things that it would be logically impossible for him to do. Can he make so evil that he could not reform it apparently. Ontological argument. I’ll just post a few classic refutations to this since this is a well trod argument and personally I’d call it a baffle with BS argument. “ P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist. P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds. P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds. P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists. C(1) It is impossible that God exists. A being that contains all the parts of another plus one extra part is the greater being. There cannot exist any part that is not a part of the greatest possible being. Therefore, the greatest possible being encompasses the entire universe -- hence Pantheism. If 1. is false, there is no reason to believe that the greatest possible being encompasses anything -- the greatest possible being is indistinguishable from nothing. If 1. is false and 4. is false because the greatest possible being is the one that encompasses all intrinsically positive things and no intrinsically negative things, then "a being that exists is greater than one that does not" is not true unless existence is intrinsically good.” “Q.E.D. Proof Two:” This is simply an assertion without evidence. You’re also assuming the Universe had a beginning and that beginning was a God. Again, Why not universe creating pixies, an evil trickster God or a God with the limited power to create universes who then died? This is a criticism of the Big Bang Theory from someone who does not at all understand it. The wide body of science accepts the Theory as the most accurate definition. The theory made predictions about the Universe which were confirmed with the discovery of cosmic background radiation confirmed The Big Bang Theory as the most accurate explanation for matter.[4] “Q. E. D. Proof Three:” “1. If the Universe has a cause, there is something which has unlimited power over the Universe.” Yes, the laws of physics have virtually unlimited power of the Universe. You’re simply asserting this without evidence. “2. The Universe has a cause.” Again an assertion. What’s your evidence? “3. There is something which has unlimited power over the Universe.” Assertion. You need to actually prove this. You can’t just state that it’s true. Omnipotence: You may not established that a maximally great being would have to be self caused. Why could it not have evolved. How is it greater to be self caused? Life on earth was self caused and it is far from omniscient. Omniscience: Assertion and what does this have to do with a proof of our god? Omnibenevolence: I’ve demonstrated why God can’t possibly be omnibenevolent. - Pro has not been able to establish that the particular God we have defined. Repeatedly makes assertions that contradict basic scientific theory. If all of Pros areguments are correct Pro can not establish that the being he describes would match our definition for God. [1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] https://evolution.berkeley.edu... [4] https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...