Philosophy 100: Does god exist?

My favourite subject has come up in philosophy class. Does god exist? To which I wrote the following:

What is god?

The Miriam-Webster dictionary online defines 'God' as:

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b: Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

I would add to that that 'God' is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. So, god should be all-powerful, all encompassing and all-knowing. Let's not forget omnibenevolent, or all good. For arguments sake, let's assume we're talking about the Abrahamic god; the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Otherwise, we may get confused with one of the THOUSANDS of other gods worshipped today.

God is the uncreated creator and ruler of the universe. He (I say 'he', though I don't believe god would have a gender) created the planets, stars and everything we see around us. He created us in his image and gave man, via Adam, control of this planet and all that live on it.

Besides being everywhere and knowing everything, he is benevolent. He is pure goodness, the yin to the yang of evil. He loves and cares for all of his children (us), though it isn't his fault that people suffer, die tragically or go to hell.

So, do I believe in god? No. I find god to be a myth, like all other deities before it. Christianity (and Judaism) are forms of other religions. Mithraism, Zoroastrianism and most recently Paganism are but a few that religion bit off of to form what we know today. I digress. We're not talking about religion; we're talking about god.

How do I know that god doesn't exist? It's simple, really. There isn't any proof that god exists. Since there isn't any proof that god exists, the logical conclusion is - god doesn't exist (that's why believing in god is faith-based). And, no, the bible isn't proof (it was written by man) nor is man, plant or animal the basis of proof (evolution and abiogenesis). I can use Ockham's Razor, anyway, to come to the conclusion that the concept of god is too complicated an idea to have been responsible for the creation of everything. There are plenty of reasons why I don't believe in god but the basis is - no proof. Sure, the possibility exists, as does the possibility that Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Vishnu, Krishna, Vulcan, Apollo or any number of other gods exists. They can exist as much as a China teapot orbitting one of the planets in our solar system or invisible unicorns. However, the probability of these existing is nil. And I say that with certainty.

[At this point, I talk about a test I took, which can be found at this link: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm. It's an interesting test that tries to find contradictions in one's belief. You need to take it to understand.]

Now, as for my direct hits; I didn't have any direct hits. I did have to bite 3 bullets, which I thought were kinda lame. And did anyone notice that the test called god a "she"?

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful). (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

If god is all powerful and can control anything, god can certainly switch what is sinful to not sinful and vice versa. Thus, god could want what is sinful. But, if god changes what is sinful to not sinful, isn't it no longer sinful?

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

There is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true. However, there is enough to warrant it as fact. Period. If we required certainty, wouldn't everything be questionable? I don't require irrevocable proof for god's existence. I simply require as much proof as I see with evolution. Just to be clear, gravity is a theory, too.

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

I don't say that god has the freedom and power to do what is logically impossible but those that believe in him do. If god is all-powerful, god can change the laws of physics, the rules of logic, anything.. god is omnipotent! He created the universe! If he can do that, how hard would it be to change the rules of logic and the laws of physics (it would be logical to say that he created those, too, right?)? Pesky questions like 'Can god create a rock he cannot lift?' seem to make things tricky though.

In reality, the questions, for me, should have ended as soon as I said False to the question "God Exists" because, frankly, everything else after that becomes irrelevant.