The Almighty God exists

First, I would like to apologize, as you seem offended, and I believe my analysis has been partly misconstrued. It was never my intention to offend any person or set of beliefs. My round 1 mentions of leprechauns and the FSM are not to directly compare them to God, but to compare their supporting reasoning. This is an argument called reductio ad adsurdum. FSM seems a natural example for it. I won't go further into the FSM, but I will shortly explain reductio ad adsurdum, since my proceeding arguments will borrow from it significantly as well. The basic idea behind reductio ad adsurdum is to take an argument (presumably from an opposing stance) and reduce the reasoning behind it from its context. In essence, if you are supporting your claim X with reasoning Y, then I would take reasoning Y, and use it to support an obviously absurd claim, Z. Since we can likely agree that claim Z is faulty, it implies there is a missing or defunct premise(s) within its supporting reasoning, Y. Since claims X and Z both use the same reasoning, Y, it follows that Y is insufficient to support X. In my argument I used the FSM for Z. By this I do not mean to draw a direct line between the FSM and God. What I do draw a line between is the argument you used to support God, and the argument that could hypothetically be used to support an absurd claim such as the FSM, those arguments being equivalent to each other. Since the same reasoning you granted in round 1 could just as easily support something as obviously absurd (which is not to say God is absurd even though I contend he does not exist) as leprechauns, it demands that your reasoning be change or altered so as to support God, but not leprechauns (as it seems you have attempted to do here in round 2); stay with the reasoning, and then additionally argue that indeed anything from the reasoning, even the given, supposedly absurd example is justified (a rarely taken path); or back off the reasoning entirely, and insert a new reasoning for the initial conclusion. I once again apologize. Now, onto my refutations. Near death experiences cannot be independently verified, and those experiences are interpretable. I feel those grounds alone are enough to dismiss the topic. Consider further though, the near-death experiences of individuals of other religions, if we hold those as evidence, things get rather sticky for you, since your God claims to be the only one out there. Upon entering Tom Deckard into Google the results are rather off-putting. Sites, plural, which come up before the "prophet" - yes, for those reading, Tom claims he is a prophet - are dedicated to debunking him. My favorites were freedomfromthelaw.com and prophettomdeckard.com. I did press forward though until I watched three of his videos. Upon cursory research, I have come to understand that Tom claims amongst other things, to have cured people of AIDS. Incidentally, he provides no proof of this and none of the allegedly cured have talked about it as far as I can tell. I don"t think I need say more on the subject of Tom; if he is your best example and evidence for miracles, I dare say you have just as much evidence of miracles as Tom does: none. Your next argument, that more people believe God than Santa, is argumentum ad populum. This is a logical fallacy. Simply because a large number of people believe something does not make it true. Consider: Most people happily believe bananas grow on trees, but technically you would find the "banana tree" to botanically be an herb! Moreover, however, I am not trying to prove Santa, but disprove God. If the difference is merely the number of followers, and argumentum ad populum is a fallacy in this case, which it is, what reason remains for me to believe in God any more than in Santa? Since your amended argument is still fallacious, I would contend my initial statements about other explanations, mythical or secular in nature, still hold. Next, you seek to cut off an argument I did not intend on making. The people you cited are all well and good, but this is evidence of the existence of your God no more than converts away are evidence that He does not exist, or converts to Roman Gods thousands of years ago are evidence that those gods existed. As far as "proof" of healing miracles and angels on YouTube, I am unsure of which you are counting as obviously fake or not, so if you could provide these proofs, that would be appreciated. I did watch two on these subjects from Tom, since you seem to support him, and he does not back up any of his claims or even provide video of the miracles, as far as I saw. Your videos on the Shemita and blood moons both suffer from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, as well as fail to provide causal links. If I were to graph, over time, the percentage of world populous that are pirates, and the average global temperature, I would find a positive correlative relationship. This does not mean that we should tell our children to drop out of school and live a life on the high seas, so as to combat global warming. So far these have all been refutations; to disprove God, I would propose a logic system. Since, a null state cannot be proven false with observation (effectively, just because something didn't happen in an experiment doesn't mean it couldn't happen), I seek to show that God is a logical impossibility as you portray Him. As you know, there are many parts of the Bible which speak to His perfection, omnipotence, etc. Many paradoxical arguments spew from them, that lead to arguments on man"s interpretation of the Bible, etymology failures, and definitions (See omnipotence paradox, Epicurean paradox). Since this debate has only a small number of rounds I will focus only on one with the least possibility in devolving into semantics. First, as we know God is without sin and certain emotions like lust and envy are sins, so we can generate the premise that by extension God has not lusted or sinned. Second, if God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows. (And much more, but this is irrelevant to my argument) Third, if premise 2 is true, God must know the feelings of lust and envy. Fourth, to know these emotions is synonymous to experiencing them, so God has felt lustful and envious. So, given that God exists, as you have explained Him, God has had and has not had the feelings of lust and envy. (As shown by the four previous premises) This is paradoxical, and therefore God cannot exist as you define him; He is impossible by His very own definition.