Does God exist?





Questions about the nature of ultimate reality have been asked as long as humans have been conscious. For thousands of years, across thousands of cultures, belief in a supreme being has been more or less common but some have always called into question whether or not God exists or can even be known.

By "God" we mean the metaphysically ultimate being, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, timeless, simple and devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities. We do not necessarily mean the Abrahamic God, although these ideas may share some overlap.

So is there a God?

Pro

 * The laws of logic are necessary true propositions. Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person. A necessarily existent person must be spiritual in nature, because no physical entity exists necessarily. Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being.
 * Thoughts are electrical synapses in the brain, so they are physical entities.
 * This is an argument that the mind exists. That is not the question. The ‘spiritual’ is also undefined, and it’s logical connection to a god is not evident
 * This proposition is not correct: "Since they are true in very possible world, they must exist in every possible world". Why? Because the expression "possible world" has two different meanings. Is an amphibology. In first case, its meaning is: "possible world that we imagine". In the second case, its meaning is: "possible world that can exist".
 * Propositions are not thoughts: they are abstract objects existing in the world of abstract objects together with numbers, shapes, mathematical functions, etc.
 * Re: "They are true in every possible world, they [propositions] must exist in every possible world": Untrue: propositions do not exist in possible worlds; they exist in the world of abstract objects together with numbers, shapes, mathematical functions, etc. Propositions are true in possible worlds.
 * Existence of God has been proven a priori using higher-order logic and reasonable axioms. Axioms used in research papers to prove are as follows: A1: Self-identity is a positive property, self-difference is not. A2: A property entailed or necessarily entailed by a positive property is positive. A3: The conjunction of any collection of positive properties is positive.
 * Non-existence of god has been proven a priori using higher-order logic and reasonable axioms.
 * What axioms and logics are used to prove it? Logics, Arguments, deductions, explanation, and axioms used to prove existence of (simplified) Supreme being are given in paper.
 * Without statement of a specific proof, there is nothing to respond to. A general reader is left with the option of believing that there exists some kind of proof without being able to verify it, or even get a vague idea of what the proof consists in. The above is essentially the "faith" stratagem.
 * *God* is merely subjective to interpretation. With that logic, you can’t disprove my version of God, so it is correct.
 * According to this logic, we should worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster
 * Various phenomena in the Universe appear to be designed and suggest a designer, God.
 * The characteristics of “appearing to be designed” is vague and subjective. At best, the appearance of design suggests some force or forces of nature that manifest as complexity and pattern. At worst it is an argument based on projected biological traits. In no way does it necessitate a god.
 * Consider Auroras, these phenomena occurs due to scattering of charged particles in atmosphere which exists as of evolutionary phases of Earth. Not designed by anyone.
 * Not a good objection. Just because a farmer grows potatoes doesn’t mean that it’s design wasn’t created.
 * The fact that some phenomena were not designed by God does not imply that no phenomena were designed by God.
 * You cannot use some things as proof for the existence of God on the basis that they seem designed, while ignoring others which exhibit similar 'designed' characteristics but which are scientifically proven to be natural.
 * Animals and plants do appear to be designed, but Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection explains how their design-like features originate without divine intervention. Before Darwinian theory, it was difficult to explain the origin of function in living things. One should not conclude from a lack of explanation for a natural phenomenon that no explanation can be found, thunder and disease being examples of phenomena for which explanations were found later.
 * Darwinian theory by no means proves that life originated without divine intervention. It just shows that the universe behaved someway at a particular point in time. Why it behaves the way it behaves may have been predetermined by divine intervention.
 * While Darwin's theory attempts to explain how life evolved, it draws no conclusions at to how it first began. Science has yet to reasonably explain it
 * Religion is yet to reasonably explain the origins of God. Similar to the chicken and the egg paradox, nothing can be created from nothing
 * Specifically God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has no beginning and no end, He simply has existed forever. For if He was limited by time, then time would be limiting a limitless God
 * You could apply the same logic to the universe. This is a special pleading case for a God that ignores not only other Gods but also the universe.
 * You could apply the same logic to the universe. This is a special pleading case for a God that ignores not only other Gods but also the universe.
 * While Darwin's theory attempts to explain how life evolved, it draws no conclusions at to how it first began. Science has yet to reasonably explain it
 * Language plays an integral role in the laws of nature and of DNA. As encoded meaning, language is non-material in its ultimate essence. Apart from something akin to the human mind, there are no serious candidates for explaining how linguistic phenomena might otherwise arise. The only reasonable way to account for the linguistic aspects of the laws of nature and of DNA is an intellect with capacities so vast that most people would immediately identify this entity as God.
 * The human mind is accounted for more easily by reference to billions of years of biochemical accidents in a massive cosmos. The leap to the “reasonability” of the existence of god is only assumed here, not argued or articulated.
 * This is simply a poor understanding of genetics
 * This is more of a personal attack than a helpful, edifying argument.
 * Human language plays no role in them at all, integral or otherwise. Genuine laws of nature exist without mind and language, and so does DNA. Laws of nature can be expressed in language, but do not depend on language. DNA, a code that gets transcribed into amino acids, resembles a language, but does not depend on language and precedes language.
 * The very fact that it resembles a language makes it count for the original argument
 * Things that resemble a language can emerge from random processes. That something resembles a language isn't evidence that it is a language.
 * Under a naturalistic worldview, the coincidence of all the cognitive faculties required for knowledge is highly unlikely, since evolution favors survival, not truth, and any overlap of survival and truth is highly implausible.   If the reliability of cognitive faculties is low, any belief is not warranted including metaphysical naturalism, which becomes self-defeating.
 * Implausible situations become increasingly possible over a cosmic scale — without a god-function.
 * This is the God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because something cannot be explained does not mean it is proof of God.
 * This doesn't imply that God exists, only that naturalism is false.
 * The requirement of survival indeed does not require a perfect capacity for truth. However, 1) "any overlap of survival and truth is highly implausible" is clearly untrue: there is a considerable overlap between search for truth and the requirement of survival; and 2) the overlap is far from perfect.
 * There is often benefit from accurate representation of the world: for instance, when planning the required stock of water to cross a desert, it pays off to make a good estimate of how much is required; and it pays off to avoid a hole instead of falling into it, driving accurate representation of physical environment. Similar requirements impact a huge range of practical human activities.
 * This reads like an objection to the argument, rather than to the parent objection.
 * Humans do not have innate intuition for modern physics including general theory of relativity, and yet modern physics seems to approach truth better than human intuition for space. By human intuition, the Earth is still, yet we found that to be untrue.
 * The human capacity for science is in need of explanation since much of scientific activity is not directly tied to survival of the genes. However, to find the explanation is the task of evolutionary psychology, and finding it may be more challenging than inexpert intuitive reasoning allows.
 * Chanting of names of God (like Hare Krishna) gives immense happiness to devotees. One can't expect such happiness from a non-theistic worldview, but God existence could explain such happiness.
 * The happiness derived from chanting a name of God stems from the belief that said name identifies God, not from the actual presence of God
 * Chanting in unison in a crowd during a sports game can cause similar feelings of happiness. Happy feelings from chanting is not evidence for God.
 * Let us assume that only chanting names of God can give unique exhilarating experience. If that is so, that may well have a Darwinian evolutionary explanation. Even if we do not know for sure what it is, the lack of specific explanation at any point in time does not preclude future discovery of a good explanation. See also Evolutionary psychology of religion.
 * For the Universe to exist, there must be an uncaused cause, God, or the Universe is eternal. So either there's no explanation for God, or there's no explanation for the Universe. The Big Bang is not an explanation, it's a description with no explanation for why it came to be. We then have to rely on chance and happenstance. God fits the picture better.
 * Chance and happenstance are observed but any “causal god” is assumed without presenting evidence or argument.
 * If there must be an uncaused cause, then why can't the Universe be the uncaused cause? Adding God to the chain only adds unnecessary complexity making it a less likely explanation. Just start with a natural, unintelligent and minimally powerful uncaused cause.
 * Everything that we know in the Universe has a cause external in space and previous in time. Why should the Universe itself be any different? But God is timeless, so the same rules don't necessarily apply.
 * One could just as easily argue that the Universe is timeless
 * The Big Bang was the beginning of spacetime. As such, we cannot say that the particles that cause the Big Bang follow the same rules.
 * Not knowing how the Big Bang came about is not proof or evidence that God exists.
 * While not definitive proof of God, it is definitive proof of the possibility of His Existence.
 * Something being possible is not evidence that it’s likely, nor a reasonable belief.
 * This assumes the need for an explanation, which is just a false equivalence. Things within the Universe require an explanation, but the Universe itself does not require an explanation, because we explain things inside the Universe based on the assumption that there is an external factor already explained. This does not apply to the Universe itself because there is nothing external to the Universe by definition. Either the Universe caused itself or simply has no cause. This might strike many as nonsensical but that is simply because they are unconsciously and inappropriately extending the logic of parts to the whole.
 * You state the Universe either causes itself or simply had no cause. It's a bald faced assertion with no supporting facts.
 * You state the Universe either causes itself or simply had no cause. It's a bald faced assertion with no supporting facts.
 * Everything we know has a cause different from itself. Thus, we must pursue this principle to its natural end, and conclude that the Universe has a cause different from itself, unless contrary evidence can be provided. You can't merely assume that the Universe is all there is and write in an exception into the definition of the Universe.
 * If you question the origin of the Universe, it's like questioning the water cycle. Where does evaporated water come from? From condensed water. Where does condensed water come from? From precipitated water. Where does precipitated water come from? From ran off water. Where does ran off water come from? From evaporated water. And the cycle goes on and on and on. Similarly, if you question the origin of the Universe, I would say from the Big Bang. If you question the origin of the Big Bang, I would say from the Singularity. If you question the origin of the Singularity, I would say from the Big Crunch. If you question the origin of the Big Crunch, I would say from the Universe. If God does exist, why did he make principles that lead to his non-existence? If God created science, why we can't connect science to him? Even principles are self-looping, so there's also indeed no creator. Energy loops, matter loops, the burnt paper turns into carbon and gas, it just turns into something else to become paper again. The Universe exists in the first place because it loops so there's no beginning or end. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only be transferred or transformed from one form to another. This implies that energy and the Universe existed in the first place. There's no creator. Just accept the fact that there is no zero in the Universe, there's a fixed number of materials and energy. The Universe is just a continuous loop of energy. It inflates through the Big Bang, reaches the maximum inflation, deflates through the Big Crunch, and reaches the maximum deflation, and the cycle goes on.
 * I agree; like questioning the water cycle, or our seasons, distinguishing the beginning from the end is a laborious task. However, who's to say in x years from now science won't find evidence reconciling God's existence? If something is currently out of sight and therefore out of mind, does this negate its existence? And emotions: do these not exist because we do not validate them so through our physical senses without having first experienced them? No; emotions make themselves real through their physical manifestations, subject to human interpretation and understood by empathy. Thus, we come to understand one's happiness through its reflexes in the face, voice and body for we have experienced this same sensation ourselves. (Accordingly then, if we have not experienced happiness we would be deficient in empathising and thus recognising happiness). Science seeks to account for the natural phenomena of our world to which we physical beings are inextricably reactive. Yet where technology falls short is in its incompatibility with the human experience; does technology have the same capacity to react impulsively, emotionally and intellectually to its environment? Humans seek personal connections with God, or the divine, as seized by the inarguably human thirst for meaning (again, exempt from the "interests" of insentient technologies). Perhaps science and religion/spirituality should simply be segregated from one another for their languages and interests are incompatible.
 * God does not have provided conclusive evidence to everyone because not all people want God.
 * Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Lack of evidence doesn't imply that God is fulfilling the desire of people who don't want God, nor that God exists.
 * Subjective evidence or described subjective experience of God suggest that God can exists who wants to known to people as God choose. And principle of incredulity say that we should believe in experience unless there is good reason to not otherwise. Now if there is positive evidence for non existence of God, it can't counted. But as far as we know, there is no positive evidence of non existence of God. Therefore subjective evidence can't be rejected. Now question one can ask is why would God don't provide subjective evidence to everyone? So, one explanation is not all people want God.
 * Subjective evidence for the existence of god is usually sourced in childhood cultural indoctrination and narcissistic wishful thinking.This is not a reliable data set on which to base a fundamental assumption about reality. Subjective evidence like this should be rejected regardless of any lack of proof of god’s non-existence. The lack of objective evidence is for believers to address.
 * If the Universe is a simulation, then there's a creator beyond spacetime who designed and fine-tuned the simulation. Now either the Universe is a simulation or the Universe is base reality. If the Universe is a simulation, it can be a simulation level 1, level 2, level 1000 or any level. If the Universe is base reality, it can exist in only one way. Therefore, there are more possibilities of the Universe being a simulation than base reality.
 * Even if our Universe is a simulation and has a creator, that doesn't imply a creator of base reality. Our Universe could be a simulation one level below base reality, which implies a creator outside of our local spacetime that exists in base reality, but that does not imply a creator outside spacetime for that base reality since the argument only applies to simulations.
 * There being more possibilities for the simulation hypothesis does not logically necessitate the acceptance of it. The construction violates Occam's razor. If we are allowed to violate Occam's razor and posit an arbitrary number of entities without any evidence, we may 1) posit God, 2) posit God and meta-God who created God, 3) posit also meta-meta-God, 4) posit a chain of meta-Gods of length n, 5) posit an infinite series of Gods, each higher one creating a lower one. All these fanciful hypotheses are unfalsifiable, not bound by observation and experiment, with no basis for differentiating between them. Occam's razor allows us to pick one of the multitude of hypotheses, and do without all these Gods, including meta-God and also God; we can do with the universe itself. Here, the force of Occam's razor was shown without any reference to simulation, but it applies to simulation as well: there being so many constructions of the simulation hypotheses is a weakness, not a strength, of the argument.
 * Difference between natural and supernatural is artificial. It depends on definition of Supernatural, and gives reason to reject God on artificial grounds. If Supernatural is defined as something which science can't explain, then most of phenomenon can't explainable by science because it depends on our observations, and it doesn't necessarily that observations shows real content of reality out there. If Supernatural is defined as something done that violates laws of physics, there is contradiction in definition. Because laws of physics are not fixed set of laws, but we try to find laws by observations and whatever comes, we describes it as laws of physics. If Supernatural is defined as some actions by agents, it is unclear whether to consider ghost as Supernatural because if some explanation found for it, it becomes natural. And it isn't necessary that nature behaves on it's own. If physical reality doesn't know what it does, or how it does, then it doesn't have to continue to exist. All physical reality can suddenly appears and disappears. It isn't necessarily for reality to such as it should change, it can be such as it remains static for infinity, and nothing happens. It behaves in such a way that is not expected if it run on it's own. However if material nature works under directions of God, it is exactly what we normally expect. And evidence from spontaneous emergent, chaotic unpredictability further suggest material nature can be works under supervision of God, as scripture like Bhagavad Gita also suggest.
 * This argument successfully argues god is possible. Few atheists dispute this, though. “Possible” is an extremely low bar for such a significant question.
 * The above looks like an incoherent jumble of multiple arguments. The first step would be to identify the separate arguments and make them dedicated items, and then we could look whether there is something to respond to. As for the definition of "supernatural", it can be defined by example: a tree spontaneously levitating above the ground with no apparent force to make it so would be a supernatural phenomenon, or would seem to be. Similarly, water spontaneously flowing upwards would be one. Another example is a ghost of a deceased person to haunt a place, perhaps open and close some door. Certain things do not happen in nature. Whether we need to play the genus-differentia game of stating what distinguishes supernatural from natural phenomena is unclear; it may be worthwhile for serious philosophy, but the examples of supernatural phenomena give a good idea. See Supernatural and Hume's Of Miracles.
 * While the initial argument is somewhat incoherent, the objection cites phenomena that were once considered Supernatural and are now explained by Science.  The Truth of God could conceivably follow the path.
 * The Universe is fine-tuned to support life. This fine-tuning is less surprising and even probable if God exists, but highly unlikely in a godless Universe.
 * The universe supports life only in certain conditions. Actually, most of it appears extraordinarily hostile to organic chemistry, never mind human life.
 * The universe supports life only in certain conditions. Actually, most of it appears extraordinarily hostile to organic chemistry, never mind human life.
 * If the universe had not been perfectly fine-tuned, we could not have debated this at all. This argument is invalid because it is one of two interpretations of all the same facts; some see fine-tuning as proof of God, others are willing to accept the improbability. If we apply Occam's Razor and the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument, the lack of a creator is the best assumption
 * The puddle analogy refutes the argument of fine tuning. Assume a puddle gains conscience. It might find that the hole it sits in fits it neatly, so neatly in fact that it must have been made for it. The puddle in this scenario does not realize that as it is made of water any hole would fit it perfectly.
 * The likeliness of a puddle fitting in a hole is nowhere near the extreme unlikeliness of universe existing with all it's features. Hence atomic balance
 * The likelihood of the universe existing with all its features is 100%.
 * The likelihood of the universe existing with all its features is 100%.
 * This argument is biased to carbon-based lifeforms. Life could exist in ways that are not based on carbon meaning the fine-tuning of the universe is not as necessary for life to exist as a carbon-based life form might think.
 * There is no clear evidence of life existing anywhere else in the Universe. Yet, the objection makes the assumption to prove something else doesn't exist
 * Considering multiverse theory, there may be many universes with their own cosmological constants. In this scenario, of course a life form in a "fine tuned" universe sees fine tuning even though that life form's existence can be relegated to chance, not God. This is an example of selection bias. The multitude of other universes inhospitable to life would never develop life forms capable of posing such questions.
 * If the Universe is ultimately meaningless, devoid of any purpose or design, then all-purpose and meaning one assigns should be imaginary. Because if the Universe doesn't have ultimately any purpose, then life just happened to appear in accidental ways such as it doesn't have any inherent meaning or purpose. However, if God is the reason for the existence of us, there can be the purpose of life. In some religions, it is suggested that God is originally in the spiritual universe with living entities. When a living entity doesn't want God, God makes a material universe for the fulfillment of the desire of them of not wanting God. The material universe is created temporarily such as living entity can realize their connection with God, and when they want God, they can return to God, which may be the purpose of life.
 * This argument assumes its own premise. It relies on the presumption that 'meaning' is an inherent characteristic of life, which is just a rudimentary form of Anthropocentrism. There is no reason why there should be 'meaning' to one's life for life to exist.
 * While the objection is logical, the ethical ramifications of such thinking lead to nihilism.
 * Nihilistic or not, a horrible reality must be accepted if it’s a reality. (Besides, meaning can come from creativity and connection.)
 * Nihilistic or not, a horrible reality must be accepted if it’s a reality. (Besides, meaning can come from creativity and connection.)
 * The only philosophies we should accept are the logical ones; however, there are secular bases for purpose.
 * The Universe follows mathematical laws independently of how humans describe them. So mathematics must exist independently of human minds. But all mathematics needs axioms. How can axioms exist independently of human minds? An axiom generator system is needed, or meta-axioms that create the axioms required for mathematical laws. But how can meta-axioms exist? Meta-meta-axioms are needed, and so on. This makes it implausible or even impossible for any mathematical laws to exist. However, it's not impossible if mathematics exists in the mind of God. Because God can conceptualize mathematics.
 * Mathematical laws are how humans describe observed matter and energy. They do not exist independently of us.
 * Axioms are abstract objects that exist in the world of abstract objects, inhabited by numbers, shapes, mathematical functions, mathematical relations, propositions, pure sets, etc. There is no requirement for a mind for abstract objects to exist. If one claims that a mind is needed in order for abstract objects to exist, one does not need to focus on axioms, one may start with numbers as abstract objects that are instantiated or reflected in the empirical universe but are located in the abstract universe. God, being a magician, can explain anything and everything: existence of abstract objects, thunder, disease, floods, trees levitating with no apparent cause, water spontaneously flowing upwards, phenomena observed and those that never occur. The explanatory utility of such an all-explaining entity is in fact zero.
 * If there is no requirement for a mind for abstract objects to exist, then how did abstract objects come into being? Did they exist eternally before there was mind to perceive them?
 * If there is no requirement for a mind for abstract objects to exist, then how did abstract objects come into being? Did they exist eternally before there was mind to perceive them?
 * Objective morality exists and requires an absolute moral authority. Without some absolute authority, all morality is an individual interpretation of morals or shared morality decided by groups of people, which is ultimately subjective. If morality comes just from the survival of fittest, it can be moral to steal or murder, if it results in survival. However, most people regard it as not moral. This absolute authority is equivalent to God who may have created humans and provided some rules or laws which may be inherent in us.
 * The existence of objective morality is not proven. Why it requires an absolute moral “authority” is not explained. Why that authority is god is not explained.
 * The argument assumes its own premise, that objective morality exists, an assumption that isn't necessarily correct but fundamentally necessary for the functionality of the argument. Since, it is from the idea of the existence of objective morality that this argument derives the existence of an absolute moral authority, and from the existence of an absolute moral authority, the existence of God, we necessarily have to conclude that, since no evidence is provided for the positive claim of the existence of objective morality, then no evidence has been provided for the positive claims of the existence of an absolute moral authority or a God. Since the existence of objective morality is provided merely as an assumption lacking supporting evidence, then the existence of an absolute moral authority or the existence of a God is just that, an assumption lacking supporting evidence.
 * Objectively moral facts can exist in a world of moral facts, just like abstract objects like numbers, shapes, pure sets, functions and propositions exist in the world of abstract objects. One only needs to posit such a world, which is what one does if one accepts objectively valid moral facts. The existence of such a world needs as much explanation as the world of abstract objects and the empirical world, meaning none. The requirement that the existence of every single entity (including worlds) must be explained cannot be met: at least, the existence of God is left unexplained. God is just an additional artificial node in the ontology to make sure everything can be bound into a nice tree and each network of nodes stemming from a binary relation has a neat origin node (the cause of all things, the explanation of all phenomena, the first move, the law giver, the source of objective morals, the source of ultimate objectives, etc.; a neat evolutionary cognitive trick, even if incorrect.
 * Suppose there was no intelligence behind the Universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.
 * A similar argument applies to the theist. Suppose an intelligence designed our brains. This could mean that our brains were designed for thinking rationally, or it could mean that our brains were designed to come to the wrong conclusions. How do we know which is true? We can't. If I can't trust my own thinking, I can't trust the arguments leading to theism. Assuming God exists does not lead to knowledge that we think rationally.
 * But problem is more serious in universe which just happened to be like it, which is accidental, mindless, purposeless, arbitrary. In such godless universe, there would millions or perhaps billions of coincidence required for brain to function exact right, and there would much more possibility that brain is unreliable. How can anyone know that brain is anything more than quantum fluctuations? In such, how can one can sure that quantum fluctuations should behaves exactly by which it makes logical decision when it doesn't know anything? How can one have faith in such quantum fluctuations such as it shows real reality than shows illusion of reality? However if God creates physical Universe for living entity for giving chance to those who don't want them, then living entity can realize God and can comes to conclusion of God by realizing that material universe is illusionary, and full of suffering which is not ultimate place for him, because of which they can comes to God. In such state, they can have faith in God and can surrender God. Additionally if God wants, God can make known their existence to someone at absolutely certain such as one can becomes certain that God exist, and can realize purpose of existence.
 * Nobody designed the stomach for digesting food either, yet with modern biology, we know through a process of evolution over millions of years that the digestive system evolved naturally through an accumulation of beneficial steps. Just like the eye, just like the mind. In short, evolution provides a better explanation than God.
 * While Evolution attempts to explain how Life evolved and offers no opinion on how it began.
 * Not really. How can physical reality behaves so perfectly? If everything is ultimately stochastic thermodynamics progress and quantum fluctuations, why such great coincidence occurs by which it works so well, such as it seems design? If it is not really design but apparent design, it can also be that there is no evolution but apparent evolution, and all entropic thermodynamics progression which doesn't know anything, just happened to behaves like that. But it's seems highly implausible, however it becomes likely if God direct nature or physical reality.
 * If God designed our minds, then why is our reasoning ability so imperfect? Why do people confuse correlation with causation? Why do people believe in astrology and other obvious nonsense?
 * "Why is our reasoning ability so imperfect?" Generalisation; one person's reasoning ability may seem sufficient in the eyes of one and poor in the other, both judgements relevant to what they simply believe. "Why do people confuse correlation with causation?" Not everything in nature is immediately obvious in its reason, which is why this debate exists in the first place. "Why do people believe in astrology and other obvious nonsense?" Why is this "obviously" nonsense and what are these "others" with which astrology is grouped? Astrology is a science of cause and effect, cause being time and effect the planetary bodies as they interact with the mathematical grid of the skies. Arguably, the effect is further transmitted into our experiences on Earth, the movements themselves thus becoming the authoritative causes in our subordinated lives, though I accept this hierarchy is difficult to prove. In any case, the planets never cease to move, and they do so in cycles, and so they are predictable and patterned both alone as solitary bodies and as a dynamic system; they mirror nature on Earth though they are extraterrestrial phenomena. Do we object to the natural phenomena of Earth that share these qualities: our days and nights and seasons and even our very human selves that run on cycle and patterned behaviour until eventual death? Earth itself is not exempt from this system of planets and very much follow their patterns, and if we strip the specifics from how processes manifest, all phenomena both terrestrial and extraterrestrial are alike. Stripped to the core, that is, all seems to run on the motivation to sustain time's longevity via the cyclical process of regenerated life from decay, or inception from ending, or life from death. Perhaps more bare is the omniscient motive: cause and effect. Denying the effect of astrology then does not mitigate its cause, as per all natural processes scientifically proven to exist or not. If it is the occult sciences to which you object, they are a salve to the bane of mortality yet are scrapped for the very reason that they concern that which can never truly be made known, including the greatest unknown - death - and thus gives the human mind itching for answers great irritability.
 * Intelligence is a gift endowed to humans that cannot be explained through evolution. It's a gift, but humans are not perfect. If so, we would be divine. How you choose to believe this happened is a matter of faith.
 * If you trust your own thinking, then you must have an absolute perfection, a highest logic, against which to measure your thoughts.
 * Why must that vision of perfection actually exist? Is it not merely a measure in our minds against an imaginary height of perfection? Thought does not imply existence.
 * Untrue: I can trust my own thinking even if it is imperfect. It may be a bad idea, but I can do it. The argument has no force.
 * If I do not blindly trust my thinking (as I should not), I should not think in isolation but consider the best arguments the greatest thinkers have to offer. Then I can try to figure out which of the arguments have the greatest force. By giving up the power of my thought entirely, I have no basis for deciding which thinker or which argument to believe. I might just pick what my parents believed, but with a minimum amount of insight I must realize that such a choice is arbitrary and exposes me to whatever they happened to believe, and furthermore, if they used the same reasoning and acquired their belief from their parents, it means that I accept a hereditary theory of knowledge by which no knowledge should ever be acquired and no new arguments discovered since everyone, being properly humble, merely accepts the thought of their ancestors. It seems much more reasonable to combine reasonable doubt about one's reasoning abilities with courage to think and examine arguments and evidence. From which nothing about God follows anyway; what was the argument, exactly? One must not think, therefore, God exists?
 * A huge number of humans, throughout centuries, have reported all sorts of encounters with God, from the personal internal type to shared apparitions and public miracles. Experiences differ in many ways, but they all support a common cause: the existence of God. It is highly implausible that many reports all be false or misled, and as we trust our experience unless we have good reason to think otherwise, it is reasonable to think that God is reason behind such experiences.
 * Testimonies are generally inconsistent unless they are sufficiently connected by cultural myths or sufficiently vague. Many cultures have the concept of magic, not because magic is real, but because magic is a sufficiently vague concept to hold many different conceptions of it. Unsurprisingly, the reports about God are more similar to the more closely connected the cultures of the witnesses are, which indicates they are cultural phenomena rather than independent observations that corroborate each other.
 * How testimony is inconsistent? In general experience of God is very difficult to describe or explain. Think how do you describe the experience of the color red to someone who is blind from birth? And cultural explanation applies to everything we experienced. Whatever we experienced is shaped by culture and our background. Like if someone who knows about tree interprets the experience of light for seeing something different than someone who doesn't know about the tree, but it doesn't mean such experience of light is not real. And when we claim that the experience of God must be the same for all, it is not reasonable. Suppose someone prays to God in the form of Lord Krishna, now if God appears as Jesus, he probably requests God to appears in form in which he remembers. Same as if someone remembers God in form of Jesus, and if they experience God in form of other, they may request God that they like God in form of Jesus, therefore, please give me appearance in the form in which I remember. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that God may not experience the same as for every devotee because devotees want God in a specific form they love, and God may fulfill a desire of devotees. Also, it is reasonable to think that God has unlimited forms, and also formless because they are absolute. Also if we reject experience because just they are different, should we also reject the experience of reality if it experienced inconsistently by different people? Most people may answer no. So why should we reject the experience of few billions of people who think they have experienced God? Unless we have positive evidence for the non-existence of God, it shouldn't be rejected.
 * To know that all these testimonies are testimonies about the same thing, we should know their object (God) independently from these testimonies. We should first know the object we are talking about (God) in order to be able to recognize that all reports deal with the same object.
 * All knowledge ultimately reduces to the testimony of one or more people. Objects cannot be known independently of all testimony.
 * This claim attempts to homogenize testimony. It fails to recognize not all testimony is created equal; some testimony is backed by evidence while some is not.
 * Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Many people have testified seeing thousands of people celebrate the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey, even though this event never took place. If you put an idea in people's minds, some people will believe that they personally saw whatever that idea is, even if the idea turns out to be false.
 * But people who have experienced God includes medical professionals who know about different psychological phenomenon, and also they have experienced God in which they may differentiate between psychological condition and the real one. Numbers of Medical professionals, physicists, cosmologists experienced God, which makes it less likely to be a purely psychological phenomenon. Additionally, many people go through psychological tests after such experience, in which many are shown to be normal and healthy. If the experience of God is purely delusional, they should show signs of delusion, but instead, people show no such phenomenon. And if God wants, God can make someone know about their existence with absolute certainly.
 * Although there are millions of believers, there are not that many of eyewitnesses, relative to the number of believers.
 * It can be because the connection with God may be difficult. Some people who love God so much, God may give him direct realization than someone who is not of that level. However many people are spiritually shallow, but they have experienced God slightly like newborn babies experience light slightly and as time passes, he can more clearly experience light. But it doesn't mean most newborn doesn't have any experience of light, and maybe the same as most people who are spiritually shallow, may not experience God deeper.
 * Argumentum ad populum.
 * It can argumentum ad populum only if it claims like "People believe in God therefore God exists". But this is not the same. This argument offers that because millions of people have experienced God, and because we have no positive evidence of the non-existence of God, the experience of God can't be rejected as delusion, hallucinations or lies because else one can reject all experience of all people by same without any positive evidence for its non-existence.
 * Personal experiences can't be accounted for as evidence because there's no evidence to support these reports. How would one prove that these encounters were not a trick of the mind, such as mirages or sleep paralysis, or completely fictional? Experiences of God's existence could easily all be hallucinations, delusions, or attributions of a supernatural cause to natural phenomena which, them being as theists, leading to them being caused by God. I can hallucinate too when I am a theist and I can refer to it as a supernatural occurrence caused by God. It leads to the assumption that it is God-caused because you are a theist.
 * Personal experience can be accounted for as evidence. Otherwise, it would not be reasonable to believe (unless you personally experience it yourself) that all humans are conscious, certain drugs induce hallucinations or certain psychological phenomena exist, such as dreams, sleep paralysis, Alice in Wonderland syndrome, phantom limb, etc.
 * When corroborated by so many people, they cannot be so handily dismissed, though.
 * Attributing some encounter with nature or with some unusual phenomenon to the existence of God is a speculative conclusion based on a subjective assessment of the available information. Is contemplation of the beauty of a flower an encounter with God, or simply an appreciation of the fractal nature of the cellular structure that has evolved over millions of years? Are reports of virgin birth evidence of a miracle, or simply a translation error, a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of conception, or marketing hype?
 * Trying to prove the existence of miracles scientifically is like trying to prove that Gandhi was Indian linguistically. It is the wrong outlet, as we can never re-experience what they did, along with millions of others. These miracles are a matter of faith to them.
 * Science is built on materialistic assumptions, so it already excludes the existence of God.
 * Current science accepts the existence of many immaterial entities, such as light, energy, spacetime and mathematical entities, so it's not built on materialistic assumptions.
 * Even if science were built on materialistic assumptions and excluded the existence of God, that doesn't imply that God exists.
 * God is defined as perfect and existence is part of perfection. Therefore, God must exist. See also Ontological argument.
 * The concept of "existing smallest positive fraction" contains existence as part of the concept, therefore, the existing smallest positive fraction exists. Makes sense? In the language of philosophers, "existence is not a predicate"

Con

 * Since there are many religions in the world, all of which have their own idea of God and their own ideas of an afterlife (i.e. heaven/hell, reincarnation, etc.), then which God is real, and which afterlife is real?
 * To claim there is no rational basis for belief in any one religion if at most one can be correct out of thousands is incorrect. The mistake here is assuming all religions have equal probability of being correct, which is not the case: some religions are internally inconsistent, for example, and so have a far lower probability of correctness than more consistent religions. To claim that the credibility of a religion is dictated by its followers' backgrounds is also incorrect; the origin of someone's belief has little bearing on whether the belief is true.
 * All major religions are internally inconsistent
 * God may have appeared in different parts of the world in different ways so that people of that place and time can understand God, according to circumstances of that time. Therefore, even though God appears different in different religions, it can be same.
 * If God provides different versions of Himself to different people at different times, then the definition of God is strained. What are we talking about if the definition of God depends on the time and place? Suggesting that God only reveals himself in ways that are not equivalent to His true nature suggests that God hasn't really revealed Himself at all. It suggests he has only revealed caricatures of Himself dependent on the cultures to which he displays these caricatures to.
 * This does not exclude the possibility that one of those religions might turn out to be the correct one, with the correct idea of God and an afterlife, even if that religion contradicts all other religions and this means all religions except for one of them turn out to be wrong.
 * If at most one religion can be correct, out of the many thousands that exist, and it is possible that they are all wrong, there is no rational basis to believe in any one religion over all the others. Most people who believe in a religion do so because of social reasons, for instance being raised in that religion, or falling in love with and marrying a follower of that religion, rather than any rational basis to believe that their particular religion is any more likely to be true than all the other religions it contradicts. No one religion is obviously superior to all of the others enough to persuade all the followers of the other religions to convert.
 * We aren't debating over the merits of Christianity or Islam for example--these are matters of faith. We are debating whether a God of some sort exists as a starting ground
 * It is not about the merits of a religion. This is about a lack of communication (or effective communication) which is weak evidence that there is no God.
 * All monotheistic religions basically have the same main idea, which is worship of a higher power, a God. The religion itself is a set of values or ideas that one certain group "binds" to a higher power. This may be meant in a way of pleasing or satisfying the higher power, which we as humans often feel the need to do. Take away these values and traditions, which is most likely human made. What we have left is the acknowledgement of a higher power. Monotheistic religions are just different ways of saying the same thing.
 * Well, you're cherry picking monotheistic religion which already is a set that can include the existence only of a single god, which is then worshiped. If you take a larger set, such as all religion, you get differing beliefs even regarding the nature and even the existence of a higher power. It is not just the traditions that are most likely human made, it is the very notion of god(s), having a clear progression from more utilitarian deities to more abstract ideas which are more resistant to empirical disproof.
 * God's existence would imply that he can change the past. This would imply that some things happened and didn't happen at the same time and in the same sense. But contradictions are impossible, so not only God doesn't exist: his existence is impossible.
 * Being the perfect father and the most/one of the most selfless beings, God would never decide to change the past or predestine the future, as that would be enslaving all of mankind. If that were to happen, there would be no reason for God to give us the power of free agency in the first place. Therefore, God will not change the past, or predestined our future. He has only foreordained it, meaning, he urges mankind to follow his example (bring yourself to Him, and then others, to avoid hypocrisy), but does not control our lives. With blessings/miracles, he can help, but he does not control our free will.
 * How can a non-human, supernatural 'entity' be characterized by human characteristics and traits? Also, how can humans know or understand the nature of a supernatural 'entity' which exists outside our universe?
 * Quantum Entanglement shows contradictions can and do exist, at least as far as humans can currently conceive of them
 * This is not a contradiction. Only the edited version of history actually happened. If God, an omnipotent being, changed the path of history, history is changed. As odd as it seemed, the previous scenario never happened.
 * However you are still presenting a contradiction: a scenario which existed and never existed.
 * If God is omnipotent, God would be more powerful than logic. Any contradictions regarding God's power would be irrelevant.
 * It might have existed but be wiped out of the history of the universe by built in mechanisms wich are available to change a certain scenario. For example if someone saw something wich they were not supposed to see, God could suddenly hit that person by lightning or induce a stroke wich would cause memory loss and they wouldn’t remember seeing that scenario and God could cut it out or replace it from the history of the universe.
 * That wouldn't be a contradiction, because God would know that He changed the past (per being all-knowing). So things that God changed would have happened at the same time, but not in the same sense. God would be able to distinguish them.
 * Doing one impossible thing is no more difficult than doing two impossible things.
 * God's omnipotence is often described as "can do anything that is not logically impossible", or similarly defined so as to rule out paradoxes deriving from His omnipotence.
 * True omnipotence would require God to be unaffected by paradoxes
 * If God's omnipotence is limited by "can do anything that is not logically impossible", then the fact that God is also defined as omniscient and knowing everything would mean God possesses complete knowledge ahead of time of all things that He will do, and is bound by logic to do what He predicted He would do. This would reduce his omnipotence to complete powerlessness since he would never have any choice at all other than to do what he predicted he would do, and thus he would not have any power at all.
 * By omnipotence and omniscience, which theists usually refer to, we are speaking of something vastly beyond our understanding and quantifying it in human terms. Omnipotence implies that he has the choice to exercise his omnipotence in any particular way, which he knows what his choice will be. Knowing what you plan to do in a circumstance beforehand by no means makes one powerless
 * If God can change the past, it does not mean he would; this is dictated by his character and motivations, which are particular to different religions. This is similar to the argument that if God can create an immovable object he is not all powerful, but if he cannot then he is not all powerful either: it is wordplay, since such a definition is nonsensical. God is unbounded by the universe's laws.
 * If we are talking about a God which affects the physical world in some way, then saying that God exists is an empirical statement. But there is no hard evidence supporting that statement, and evidence is necessary to prove an empirical statement.
 * God is outside of the confines of our physical world, and whether or not God is actively involved in this world is not being debated. Therefore, saying that God exists is not an empirical statement, it's a metaphysical statement, and empirical proof for metaphysical statements is not necessary or even possible.
 * By this logic, there is no such thing as a false statement. Anything can be inferred. I have a 3 headed donkey in my backyard except you can't see it, it doesn't smell, and you can't touch it; there is no physical evidence for its existence whatsoever, but it exists metaphysically, above the plane of our existence. At this point, you have to ask, what do I mean when I say the donkey "exists"? If physical evidence isn't required to say that something exists, then I'm correct when I say that a 3 headed, 5 headed, 50,000 headed, and 50,001 headed donkey all exist in my backyard.
 * However, donkeys exist as empirical evidence. They are real animals that can be touched or seen. God has never been defined as existing in physical form, e.g, like a man to be seen and touched, the only exception being God the son, Jesus Christ. God is described as the creator of the universe, the origin of all life. Comparing the concept of God to an empirically provable being like a donkey is erroneous. Therefore, there is still room for the existence of false statements, as far as empirically provable things( meaning things that exist in our physical world) exist.
 * The objection is assuming the donkey is an entity that exists in the metaphysical sense, the same as God.
 * God may have perfect reason for not giving hard evidence to everyone. There are some people who don't like God, don't want God or if they know that God exist, they may becomes envy of God. God may not hides their existence from someone who doesn't want God as fulfilling their desires, and which may be better for them. As scriptures like Bhagavad Gita says, it can be that God manifest in proportion to one surrender to God.
 * God is conceived as all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful. So, if God exists, then under any ordinary definition of evil, evil shouldn't exist. But evil clearly exists. Therefore, (all-good and all-powerful) God does not exist. If there is an all-powerful creator of the world, he or she is not all-good, wishing the best for the creation and the creatures. There is a lot excruciating pain, death and destruction. Human life starts with often painful birth and end with often painful death. Stars and galaxies die, species go extinct, humans die in childhood, old-age diseases develop, humans get murdered, killed in war and tortured, animals get killed by other animals, some animals are kept alive before being fully eaten by their predators, there is a whole predatory network of food chain, etc. See also Problem of evil.
 * Good would not be good without evil, just as light wouldn't be light without darkness. It is this precise dichotomy that allows us to distinguish between right and wrong. There would not be a world if good and evil were the same thing, just as if light and darkness were the same thing. A good person is good because they have been confronted to evil, and chose to do the right thing, just like evil people choose evil when they could do good. In more metaphysical terms, it would make more sense to see evil as the absence of good, just like darkness is the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness cannot. To say that God doesn't exist because evil exists would be akin to saying light cannot exist because darkness exists
 * We do not know what God exactly do if they have perfections. We think God should do this or other, but we can't imagine it from way God would think. We can think if I am photon, I would do this or other, but we don't know what exactly happens when one be a photon. God who is outside of material realism, may have perfect reason to produce seemingly imperfect universe. We don't know God's reason for something, and if we know it we also think that everything is like it should be as best.
 * We define ourselves as moral authority and decides what is good or not, but God may beyond good and evil, the absolute one. Because God is free, if living entity is part and parcel of God, living entity should be free, and because of it they have minutes of free will. Now if living entity not like God or doesn't want God, God may fulfill his desire to becomes independent of God, and creates material world where living entity can be independent of God, and enjoy without God. Now as living entity has free Will, they can choose actions for which they are responsible, to which God doesn't intervene as they respect free will. But if they choose to do something bad, it is entirely on them because they have chosen it from their will. God may created suffering in material world to let someone know that it is not permanent place and living entity can again realize God, and can return to them.
 * God could have given humans the power to do evil. If humans can do evil, then evil can exist despite there being an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God. Moral responsibility is not hereditary. If my (grownup) child commits a crime, no society will (or should) blame me for it. Similarly, if a human does evil, we shouldn't blame God for it. Giving the power to do evil is not the same as doing it. God may even be the (metaphysical) cause of evil, while not being morally responsible for it. But no one contends that God raised us that way. He merely gave us the freedom to choose. In fact, because we turned away from his benevolence, evil arose, according to theists. Should we not live with the consequences of our actions and disobedience, then?
 * This would still make God responsible for evil, albeit indirectly. Moral responsibility is partially hereditary. If I knowingly raise my child in a way that makes it highly likely they will commit a crime when grown up that makes me responsible for that crime and subject to blame. An omniscient God should have known that if he gave humans the freedom to choose, we would do evil. Therefore, he allowed evil to exist, which contradicts the benevolent nature of God.
 * To understand good, we must understand that it cannot exist without evil. This is how we know what is good and what is not. If good didn't exist, so wouldn't evil. They work together, like light and darkness. To say god is evil because evil exists would be the same as saying light is dark because darkness exists. God is the light in the darkness.
 * Even if God gave humans free will and the power to do evil, this doesn't imply that there should be evil. A world where free will exists but evil does not is logically possible. God can create any world that is logically possible, so God chose a world where there is unnecessary evil. This contradicts the all-powerful and all-good nature of God.
 * We haven't dealt with the problem of natural evil. Is cancer also the consequence of human disobedience?
 * Assuming God exists, since he created everything, he also would have created the moral standard. God gave humans free will to commit evil, therefore, if God exists, free will is the moral choice. Humans do not get to say that God is immoral, when God is the one who determines what is and is not moral.
 * The argument is not that God is "immoral"; it is that God is not benevolent or good-wishing. The argument is that he who can easily intervene to make good but does not is not good-wishing. And he who can create in such a way that only good ensues but does not is not good-wishing either. And he who cannot create in such a way that only good ensues is not all-mighty.
 * In order to exist, an entity must exist as something. To exist as something, the entity must have positive primary attributes (i.e. I'm a material entity, made up of atoms). All of God's attributes are either negatively defined (ex. omniscience can be reduced to 'without limits of knowledge'), secondary (i.e. good) or relational (i.e. creator). If a god is Creator, then it must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself. But "immaterial" is a negatively defined term. Therefore a god's substance is undefined. All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent. If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief in such a concept is not possible.
 * Positive and negative properties are vague notions, often interchangeable. 'Closed' can be reduced to 'not open', just as 'open' can be reduced to 'not closed'. Similarly, 'omniscience' can be reduced to positive terms, like 'with total knowledge' just as it can be reduced to negative ones, like 'without limits of knowledge' or 'without ignorance'. Other properties of God, such as 'all-powerful', can also be thought as either positive or negative: 'with complete power' or 'without limits to its power'.
 * Even so, saying that something is omniscient is a secondary characteristic - it's telling us what something can do, NOT what it is. If I said humans were an IQ of 120, that doesn't really tell me much of anything about what a human IS (as opposed to saying something like an entity in space/time made up of matter, etc).
 * Yes, it does. Intelligence is an attribute of humans, is it not?
 * and are entities whose existence is generally accepted by the scientific community, despite the fact that we don't know what they are made of. The fact that we don't know what something is made of doesn't imply that it's made of nothing, or that it doesn't exist.
 * Dark matter and energy are theoretical.
 * Global warming, evolution, the Theory of Relativity, and even gravity are also theoretical. This does not mean they are wrong. The scientific community can have almost complete certainty in something but still classify something as "just a theory".
 * This is irrelevant to the primary point of the original argument: "All of God's attributes are either negatively defined (ex. omniscience can be reduced to 'without limits of knowledge'), secondary (ex. good) or relational (ex. creator)." The part of the original argument stating that God's substance is undefined is not necessary for the original argument to be correct... if the unnecessary sentence "Therefore a god's substance is undefined." were left out of the original argument it would be a perfectly valid argument and this objection against it would not work. The main point of the original argument is that in order to exist, that entity must has positive primary attributes, of which there still are none for God. This is a red herring, if we remove that unnecessary sentence from the original argument.
 * How about the fact that the Universe exists in the first place. The fact that the necessary things exist in the first place that leads to the big bang theory and the creation of the Universe. Then the Universe shrinks again into a big matter, crushing everything in its collision, bringing back to the theory of big bang, and the cycle goes on infinite time. What if the Universe is not zero in the first place? The Universe exists without the creation of anything. We can't think of anything that might have created the Universe, because it's just there.
 * God doesn't exist because of Theophagus, the god-eater. Since Theophagus is god-eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So if God exists, He would immediately cease to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless it's proven that Theophagus doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist.
 * God, being infinite and immaterial, cannot be eaten. If there were somehow a being higher than God, (in this case Theophagus,) then that being would be God.
 * Without any evidence or logical argument for the existence of such a being, there's no reason to believe Theophagus exists.
 * The same argument against Theophagus works on God: Without any evidence or logical argument for the existence of such a being, there's no reason to believe God exists. So either the argument you raised against Theophagus is valid, in which case it is also valid against God, and thus there is no reason to believe God exists, or the argument you raised against Theophagus is invalid, in which case Theophagus has eaten God and God no longer exists.
 * If you've read the entire "Arguments for" section, one would see that there are arguments for God's existence
 * Some Of the arguments you're pointing to are all unsound or plainly invalid. There actually are not better arguments for God's existence than for Theophagus.
 * God is omnipotent and omnipresent, so even if Theophagus exists, God can't be eaten by him.
 * By its definition, Theophagus eats omnipotent and omnipresent beings.
 * Nothing about omniscience and omnipotence precludes being eaten.
 * If God is the most powerful being, and Theophagus can eat God, then Theophagus is more powerful than God, so Theophagus is God, therefore Theophagus/God eats itself and Theophagus/God cease to exist.
 * If Theophagus can eat God, who cannot be eaten, his existence creates a contradiction. Therefore, Theophagus cannot exist
 * If Theophagus can eat God, who cannot be eaten, then God's existence creates a contradiction. Therefore, God cannot exist. To refute this argument, we must prove that Theophagus does not exist independent of the existence of God.
 * We have two options. Either Theophagus is God or Theophagus is not God. Now attribute of Theophagus is God-like, who need to be omnipotent to eat God, who also need to be omniscient to know everything which requires to eat omnipotent God. If Theophagus is god, he has to eat himself before he eat Actual God. So, if he has eaten himself before eating Actual God, he can't eat God and this all create recursion loop. If Theophagus is not god, he needs to have less than omnipotent and omniscient, by which he can't he eat Actual God, because God is perfect omnipotent who knows everything about Theophagus.
 * Particles don't have a position until their wave function collapses, and wave functions collapse when observed. From experiments such as the double-slit experiment, we infer that there are uncollapsed wave functions. Therefore, there is no being observing all particles, no omniscient being, no God.
 * The wave function could be an actual manifestation of God that is beyond our comprehension (currently)
 * The wave function could be an actual manifestation of God that is beyond our comprehension (currently)
 * We don't really understand how observation causes superposition to collapse nor how a being who is outside of spacetime (or alternately who exists in all of spacetime) would even affect superposition. As argued in his version of, all of the physical Universe exists because God is perceiving it.
 * God of the gaps fallacy.
 * He was merely pointing out that the original statement need not be always true, nor has any true weight because God exists outside of the physical world.
 * What we do know about it is that observation causes collapse of the wave function (if you want to claim that being outside space time is somehow different in that regard you'll have to substantiate that claim).
 * The wave function collapse does not happen because of observation per se, but when a wave function interacts with a classical environment. If God is all-powerful, he can observe a wave function without interacting with it.
 * Being all-powerful is self-contradictory. This is because an all-powerful God would be able to predict the future, but also be able to take actions which would contradict His predictions of the future. Since knowing things is a power, being all-powerful implies being all-knowing. And then, since an all-knowing God would know all of the actions He would take ahead of time, an all-knowing God would know in advance all actions He would ever take, and, in order to prevent any paradoxes and allow God to exist, God's "all-powerful" powers would have to be reduced to just doing what God predicted He would do ahead of time. Thus the whole idea of being all-powerful is nonsense.
 * This has already been addressed in above arguments, but I'll reiterate--knowing what you will do beforehand does not take away from your freedom of choice. His knowledge is his choice.
 * Knowing that something will happen effectively means that nothing different will happen. If nothing else will happen then God cannot do something else other than what he foresaw, being then effectively limited in what he can do.
 * In quantum systems observation is intrinsically linked to the behavior of the system. Your assumption that God is omnipotent is therefore in contradiction which a known feature of the actual world (and being God defined as being omnipotent its very existence is inconsistent with observation of properties of the actual world).
 * If God is all-knowing, he does not need to observe particles to know their position.
 * When a particle exists in a quantum superposition that can be described using a wave function, prior to wave function collapse, that particle does not actually have any definite position, but just probabilities of being in different locations. This has been experimentally verified in the aforementioned double-slit experiment. So talking about the position of a particle whose wavefunction has not yet collapsed as if it is something definite makes no sense, since such particles can and do exist in multiple locations at the same time, which is what produces the interference fringes in the double-slit experiment, from a particle in different locations interfering with itself in other locations, meaning, it really has no one location. So if God were to perceive such a particle as being at one specific location, God would be incorrect.
 * Some infinite traits, such as "omniscience", have a computational complexity equal to infinity, thus the of a God defined with these attributes is infinite, the prior probability for his existence is epsilon, and "P(X exists) is epsilon" is the statistically literate way of saying "X does not exist".
 * Pure deterministic processes like computation are not the only means of finding Truth.
 * We exist in a material universe, therefore empirical study is better than 'faith' or other means for finding the truth.
 * A 'God' could exist outside our universe, so empirical evidence would be inadequate for a non-empirical entity.
 * Non-theism is the parsimonious worldview. In other words, following Occam's razor, it avoids assuming existence of entities that add no genuine explanatory value. See Existence of God.
 * This isn't so much an argument as it is appeal to authority. And a self-referencing one at that.