Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I have so far converted 5 people to Atheism/Agnostic after having them watch the Zeitgeist films.. and they thanked me after.

Nuff said.

At 8/31/10 12:59 PM, rick-mckrills wrote: Grow up or die.

Sounds real mature... and in no way hypocritical of everything he's against.

"Give up your religion or die because you're evil and stupid. How do I know this? I just know do."

I can totally see how that's diffrent then the religious telling the other non-believers to change their views or face their wrath.

He doesn't know that there isn't a God. YOu know how I know that? Because I don't know that and he doesn't have any mental capabilities that I don't have.

Pot, meet the kettle.

At 8/31/10 04:34 PM, bart4president wrote: I have so far converted 5 people to Atheism/Agnostic after having them watch the Zeitgeist films.. and they thanked me after.

Nuff said.

I am prophetic.

At 8/31/10 04:55 PM, CacheHelper wrote: "Give up your religion or die because you're evil and stupid. How do I know this? I just know do."

Except that's not at all his argument.

I can totally see how that's diffrent then the religious telling the other non-believers to change their views or face their wrath.

Yeah actually it is, for a few reasons.

He doesn't know that there isn't a God.

Nor is it requisite that he know there isn't a God to make the point he's making.

Pot, meet the kettle.

You know there was plenty of bullshit in that quote, but somehow you missed it all.

At 8/31/10 11:07 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: You know there was plenty of bullshit in that quote, but somehow you missed it all.

Perhaps because (once again) he was too busy shoveling his own brand on top of it and interpreting the quote in his own special way?

I'm going to be a dick and pipe my one-liner in on the 65th page, without having read a single word before me. Here goes:

There is no "Atheism vs. Theism". Atheism is a default position in response to a positive claim. Theism hasn't met any kind of burden of proof, therefore there's no compelling reason to subscribe to it.

Regards.

Didn't think I'd post in here, seeing as anyone who believes in any 'theism' must accept that it's an illogical position to hold, and thus no meaningful debate can form from it.

"There isn't any logical reason to believe in a god."
"I know that."
"Why do you, then?"
"I accept that there isn't a logical reason, but I have faith that it's right (which, by definition, means the person accepts that there isn't any proof for it, yet believes anyway)."
"But there isn't any proof!"
"But I have faith!"
"But..."
etc. ad nauseum. It's pointless rabble from both sides.

NONETHELESS, I have a question, for all you atheists here (and I don't think I can post it elsewhere without debunking a topic). I've seen the term 'Atheism' being tossed around as meaning 'One who doesn't believe in god'. That's perfectly acceptable. However, some people (I heard it from Imperator and Poxpower, so far, but I'm sure others hold this understanding, as well) take this definition to mean 'One who doesn't believe in a particular god', which doesn't make any sense to me. Why even make a word for it, at all? There are other words that imply this same thing, namely 'Monotheism' (the belief in a single god) & Polytheism (the believe in more than one god), and there is already a name for one who believes in every god, namely 'Universalism' (which would be the name of a 'Polytheist' who believes in every god, so there would be no need to define a 'Polytheist' that was 'atheistic' towards other gods).

Claiming that every person that believes in a religion (say, Christians, for example) and is atheistic towards others is the equivalent to saying someone who is Monotheistic (believes in one God) is also atheistic (doesn't believe in any god, OR doesn't believe in a particular god, which is a redundant point, so I'm not normally going to use that definition). Why are you guys bothering defining 'atheism' as such when it's a redundancy at best (and a nonsensical statement, at worst)?

You don't have to see something for you to find evidence that it exists.

We can tell that planets exists around stars because we can see the effect they have on the objects around them.

It's not crazy for someone to see life as the effect of God and thus rationalize their belief in his existance without having undeniable proof to show someone. If one believes, it's not his fault that the non-believers refuse to accept their evidence as a valid argument.

Non-believers are just as close minded and set in their ways as those who believe. A non-believer arguing against a believer is no diffrent then a believer of one religion arguing against the believer of another religion. We are all humans, we all suffer the same flaws. To imply that you know something you don't or that your lack of faith makes you a better person, actually makes you the biggest fool of all.

At 9/3/10 12:14 PM, CacheHelper wrote: You don't have to see something for you to find evidence that it exists.

We can tell that planets exists around stars because we can see the effect they have on the objects around them.

It's not crazy for someone to see life as the effect of God and thus rationalize their belief in his existance without having undeniable proof to show someone. If one believes, it's not his fault that the non-believers refuse to accept their evidence as a valid argument.

Non-believers are just as close minded and set in their ways as those who believe. A non-believer arguing against a believer is no diffrent then a believer of one religion arguing against the believer of another religion. We are all humans, we all suffer the same flaws. To imply that you know something you don't or that your lack of faith makes you a better person, actually makes you the biggest fool of all.

Hypothetically, if you were to find something that shows evidence of creation, that would not prove the Christian perception of God. All that would imply is that something created everything. The exact details outside of that are completely unknown so filling in the unknowns with assumptions is fallacious.

Still, I don't see how "I do not believe in God" is close minded. That is not a positive claim. All it says is that unless there is some type of evidence there is no reason to believe. If I am presented with several unsupported claims (all world religions) and I can only chose one, I would pick none of the above. That is not close minded. It is the most rational decision because one is not better than any other and they are all mutually exclusive.

I love it when people use an analogy to try to promote the idea of a god, simply because they seem to love clashing naturally occurring phenomena with supernatural ones.

At 9/3/10 12:14 PM, CacheHelper wrote: You don't have to see something for you to find evidence that it exists.

We can tell that planets exists around stars because we can see the effect they have on the objects around them.

That method only infers that a body of mass is orbiting a star, not just a planet. It takes careful observation of it's behaviour as well as a good knowledge of physics so we can estimate the mass and velocity of the body orbiting the star.

However, if a body passes over the star blocking the light, we can see it visually.

But on the other hand, what do we know of any gods? What are they made of? How do they work? What laws and theories govern them?

We can know a body is orbiting a star because we have an understanding of the universe, exactly what understanding do we have of a god?

It's not crazy for someone to see life as the effect of God and thus rationalize their belief in his existance without having undeniable proof to show someone. If one believes, it's not his fault that the non-believers refuse to accept their evidence as a valid argument.

Firstly; Arguments =/= evidence. An argument is strengthen or weakened by evidence, arguments themselves are not evidence.

But I would love to see you use a method which only explains phenomena in the natural universe to a supernatural entity(s).

If there was evidence for a god, it would have peer reviewed articles saying so.

Non-believers are just as close minded and set in their ways as those who believe. A non-believer arguing against a believer is no diffrent then a believer of one religion arguing against the believer of another religion. We are all humans, we all suffer the same flaws. To imply that you know something you don't or that your lack of faith makes you a better person, actually makes you the biggest fool of all.

Yes, some people are assholes. Well done for pointing out the obvious.

At 9/3/10 12:14 PM, CacheHelper wrote: We are all humans, we all suffer the same flaws.

Start listing them.

I wonder if Christians have ever thought that the Bible is just a fucking book. It was created by man himself. If they say that the men who wrote it were messengers from "God", my answer would be that they were pot-heads who heard voices in their head when they were high.

Brainwashing children to believe in Christianity / Creationism without a choice pisses me off.

At 9/3/10 06:03 PM, Tianwell wrote: Brainwashing children to believe in Christianity / Creationism without a choice pisses me off.

Anyone up for a discussion of brainwashing vs raising a child?

At 9/3/10 06:26 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 9/3/10 06:03 PM, Tianwell wrote: Brainwashing children to believe in Christianity / Creationism without a choice pisses me off.

Anyone up for a discussion of brainwashing vs raising a child?

Writer of Godless and presidend of the Freedom of Religion Foundation Dan Barker in an interview on Blog Talk radio with a user by the name ThethinkingAtheist said that he was raised by (and spent most of his life as) Christians which he described it as "crazy fundamentalist beliefs". Even with the belief of faith healing, believing in an apocalypse and living an evangelical life which consisted of a vast amount of preaching he describes his childhood as fun, privileged, enjoyable and not abusive or negative.

That's all I got.

At 9/3/10 12:14 PM, CacheHelper wrote: You don't have to see something for you to find evidence that it exists.

True, but it helps. Too bad this does nothing to address the lack of evidence for God.

We can tell that planets exists around stars because we can see the effect they have on the objects around them.

Hey, this CRAZY new invention we came up with...called a telescope? Yeah, actually lets us observe the universe. Yeah, I know, damn things must have only come out like what? A year or so ago? I can understand why you aren't familiar...geez.

It's not crazy for someone to see life as the effect of God and thus rationalize their belief in his existance without having undeniable proof to show someone.

It's not fair either. Because when people have imaginary friends or create imaginary people in they're head with exactly the same amount of evidence they're called crazy or schizophrenic. But religion is exempt, and that's really not fair. It's not fair or right to be able to say you're not crazy for doing something people who are crazy do all the time.

If one believes, it's not his fault that the non-believers refuse to accept their evidence as a valid argument.

It's also not the non-believers fault that the "evidence" isn't really evidence and is done from a completely self-serving and illogical and irrational premise. "God exists because I say he does" or things like Pascal's Wager. Or the intellectual sounding, but complete bs "the abscence of evidence, is not the evidence of abscence"

Non-believers are just as close minded and set in their ways as those who believe.

I don't think most are. I have some belief in at least some sort of "universal justice". I realize and freely admit this is not a rational belief, it is not a belief I can prove, and I hold it solely because it makes me feel good to do so. I'm honest about that fact and have no problem with anyone who wants to tell me it's irrational, illogical, or highly subjective. Why? Because it absolutely is.

I think most non-believers would be perfectly willing to believe in the supernatural, but only when the supernatural, or it's adherents bring them some concrete proof. If God wants to make sure everyone beliefs in It, then why doesn't It do something that is totally and completely unmistakably a supernatural event and sign It's name to it? Hell, why not just show up in Central Park and broadcast the appearance all across the world simultaneously? If God did that, anyone arguing against God automatically looks like the irrational and illogical one.

A non-believer arguing against a believer is no diffrent then a believer of one religion arguing against the believer of another religion.

It's been pointed out numerous times why this line of thought is wrong. Atheism and Theism do NOT have equal footing in an argument. Not in the least,

We are all humans, we all suffer the same flaws.

That has nothing to do with anything.

To imply that you know something you don't or that your lack of faith makes you a better person, actually makes you the biggest fool of all.

Appeal to...intellect I guess? Right guys?

Saying that until evidence presents for God that you conclude there is no God isn't foolish at all. It's just logical. The ones who insist they know something they have no proof of and everybody ELSE is the idiot...they sound like the fools to me :)

hola! Thought this would be a cool place to post seeing as religion is one of my interests. Do any other theists post here?

At 9/4/10 01:32 AM, dillongunter wrote: hola! Thought this would be a cool place to post seeing as religion is one of my interests. Do any other theists post here?

Probably, but no sensible theist would argue religion with the atheists in here. Read the topic name and try to post an argument that doesn't end in 'Well, we simply have faith in God/Bible/Tradition!'... hence why I'm not arguing God's existence here (which is all atheists seem to be interested in... alas, how limited).

For shits and giggles, I'll summarize the thread, where I'm sure it's been and where I'm sure it'll go.

1.) Do you believe in God and why/why not?
Answer:
Yes, I do. There is no evidence, but I have faith in it.
-or-
No, I don't. There is no evidence, and I don't have faith in it.
IF a Christian (or whatever theist) tries to argue that there is evidence for Him, they will be shot down by the fact that there are other explanations to explain a particular phenomena.

2.) Why do you believe in God?
Answer:
That's a redundant question. The desired (and correct) answer is simple - the person has simple faith in Him. It's a redundant question because, by definition, 'faith' means you believe without a reason... so what's really being asked is 'What is the reason you believe without a reason?', which is stupid. The sooner people can get over that fact, the sooner people will stop asking that pointless question.

3.) Creationism or Evolution...?
Answer:
Evolution. (for both Theists and Atheists)
For the Christians that chose Creationism, that's simply incorrect, even for Christians. It has been shown not to disprove the existence of God in any way, so why are people still getting their pants wet over it?

Everything else can be reduced to point 1.) and point 2.), given enough time in the arguments. That's why no sensible theist should post in here.

At 9/4/10 01:32 AM, dillongunter wrote: hola! Thought this would be a cool place to post seeing as religion is one of my interests. Do any other theists post here?

A couple

At 9/4/10 04:49 PM, Gario wrote: That's a redundant question.

It's not completely redundant, assuming faith is a motivated or conditioned.

We also argue against the relativist fallacy a lot.

I can't recall the dude, but some famous bro once said something that sounded like this:

God exists and you believe in him.
God exists and you don't believe in him.
God doesn't exist and you believe in him.
God doesn't exist and you don't believe in him.

I'd be glad if someone linked me to a wikipedia article, since I've been googling for a while and can't find shit about this. Plus I'm not sure if it even went like that, because I only vaguely remember it from my brother.

At 9/4/10 06:19 PM, Lorkas wrote: I can't recall the dude, but some famous bro once said something that sounded like this:

God exists and you believe in him.
God exists and you don't believe in him.
God doesn't exist and you believe in him.
God doesn't exist and you don't believe in him.

You talking about Pascal's wager?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_
wager

As for the Relativist fallacy, I never saw that as a theist-atheist issue, so I never would've guessed it'd pop up here. It is fun to rip someone apart when they use relativism to it's extreme like that, though.

At 9/4/10 04:49 PM, Gario wrote:

Probably, but no sensible theist would argue religion with the atheists in here. Read the topic name and try to post an argument that doesn't end in 'Well, we simply have faith in God/Bible/Tradition!'... hence why I'm not arguing God's existence here (which is all atheists seem to be interested in... alas, how limited).

How about this argument on faith's logical existence. Jesus said: For we walk by faith and not by sight (I'm roughly paraphrasing that). Rene Descartes tried to prove the existence of anything but failed to prove anything but his own doubting (Cogito Ergo Sum). I have come to the conclusion that we honestly do nothing without faith. We have faith in everything around us, the natural laws that blindly direct everything around us, and faith in events that have not occurred yet (waking up tomorrow, going to work, school, church, plans for the future).

In my quest to logically prove god's existence, I've found that when someone is truly a determined skeptic, proving God's existence is like trying to prove other mind's existence to Rene Descartes. When someone is truly determined to disprove any idea or thought, they will and almost without question. More often than not, people will even place ideas within other ideas to corrupt the original idea in order to prove their own point. If someone is truly determined to disprove God and God's existence, they will.

At 9/5/10 03:10 AM, dillongunter wrote:
How about this argument on faith's logical existence. Jesus said: For we walk by faith and not by sight (I'm roughly paraphrasing that). Rene Descartes tried to prove the existence of anything but failed to prove anything but his own doubting (Cogito Ergo Sum). I have come to the conclusion that we honestly do nothing without faith. We have faith in everything around us, the natural laws that blindly direct everything around us, and faith in events that have not occurred yet (waking up tomorrow, going to work, school, church, plans for the future).

Look, this is an old fallacy. "We have faith in all these things in everyday life so my faith in the supernatural is justified!". No it's not. Our belief that everyday things will work is based on repetitive experience of these things working.

And despite this, all of us are ready to throw our "faith" in the everyday out of the window if it turns out to be in error. Somebody can have faith in that his wife loves him and is not cheating on him, but that changes if he sees evidence to the contrary. Faith in God is not like this. It comes about from a desire for God to exist, and it won't go away when you see things that suggest to the contrary.

In my quest to logically prove god's existence, I've found that when someone is truly a determined skeptic, proving God's existence is like trying to prove other mind's existence to Rene Descartes. When someone is truly determined to disprove any idea or thought, they will and almost without question. More often than not, people will even place ideas within other ideas to corrupt the original idea in order to prove their own point. If someone is truly determined to disprove God and God's existence, they will.

I keep seeing a trend for this. "Atheists wouldn't believe even if God appeared right in front of them". It's as if you are suggesting that we should all secretly want God to exist, and FYI on us atheists for not doing this. Stop being so damn skeptical, wouldn't it be awesome if God existed?

At 9/5/10 08:03 AM, Drakim wrote: Stop being so damn skeptical, wouldn't it be awesome if God existed?

I disagree with you here. I think it would be horrible if god existed. I'm thankful that he/she doesn't.

The idea of being born into a universe which has some kind of all-powerful divine being controlling everything that happens, who knows everything that will ever happen and knows everything about you, doesn't appeal to me.

Not only does he know every dirty thought that's ever crossed your mind but he's planning a lovely afterlife for you depending on how you've chosen to live your 'first' life, and this afterlife isn't based on how you behaved or your morality or anything like that, it's based on whether or not you believed in this 'god' character all along.

Doesn't sound awesome to me, and I feel sorry for the people who waste their one and only existence thinking that there's something special in store for them after they've died. Whether they can comprehend it or not, this is as close as they are ever going to get to eternal life, so they should make the most of it while it lasts.

At 9/5/10 08:10 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 9/5/10 08:03 AM, Drakim wrote: Stop being so damn skeptical, wouldn't it be awesome if God existed?

I disagree with you here. I think it would be horrible if god existed. I'm thankful that he/she doesn't.

I disagree with you reading my position wrong. That line was written in sacrasm, as indicated by that the rest of the post was clearly arguing against theism :(

At 9/5/10 08:03 AM, Drakim wrote:

Look, this is an old fallacy. "We have faith in all these things in everyday life so my faith in the supernatural is justified!". No it's not. Our belief that everyday things will work is based on repetitive experience of these things working.

Now, did I say that faith in the supernatural is justified? I was merely proving the existence of faith.

And despite this, all of us are ready to throw our "faith" in the everyday out of the window if it turns out to be in error. Somebody can have faith in that his wife loves him and is not cheating on him, but that changes if he sees evidence to the contrary. Faith in God is not like this. It comes about from a desire for God to exist, and it won't go away when you see things that suggest to the contrary.

Faith in general works like the way that you've pointed out about God. Faith is when you choose to believe in something, in spite of or lack of evidence unless there has been a personal revelation, which is usually of little value to someone determined to knock off the argument. I still find it a perwerful message though when you see someone clean their life up with the help of a "greater power" (12 steps program). Hope however was your latter definition of faith, hoping that your wife is not cheating on you, hoping that life is real, hoping that there is something after life (because, well, there's no sure answer until you die)

I keep seeing a trend for this. "Atheists wouldn't believe even if God appeared right in front of them". It's as if you are suggesting that we should all secretly want God to exist, and FYI on us atheists for not doing this. Stop being so damn skeptical, wouldn't it be awesome if God existed?

I never quite said that either, i just said that to a determined skeptic, proving God is like trying to prove the existence of other minds. It takes faith that there is a God. To someone that doesn't want faith, they won't believe unless a direct personal revelation occurs. I never suggested that we should all do one thing or another. I was merely persenting ideas. Another thing you might not realize is that you are proving my other point about corrupting ideas. You were reading into my thought without seeing the idea. You were filling the idea with notions that I was suggesting people should think a certain way or that I was reading more into the faith argument by including my ideas of God. I can tell you my friend that I was not. I would love to share my thoughts on God, but only if you would not add more to it than is there and try to corrupt an idea that was not corrupt to begin with :p lol

At 9/5/10 04:09 PM, dillongunter wrote: Now, did I say that faith in the supernatural is justified? I was merely proving the existence of faith.

Ok. Since you're so eager to call out a straw man. Who here has disputed - actually... of all the a thiests you've spoken to are been spoken to be... how many of them disputed the idea that faith even exists?

This is where I'm going to have to call disingenuousness on you, for falling back on moral relativism cause it gets you out of an argumentative bind - when your argument very clearly is an argument supporting faith in the supernatural.

You are by no means merely proving the existence of faith. Otherwise, you'd have no need to take the argument the step further, and compare a general notion of faith to that of faith in the supernatural. The comparison is very clearly a means to an additional point.

Faith in general works like the way that you've pointed out about God.

No it doesn't, as it's obvious when you're dealing with the dichotomy: { faith in the aforementioned everyday things } vs { faith in the supernatural }.

One of them has empirical precedent. The other does not.

Not to mention, of all the anecdotal evidence, run-ins with divine providence apart from 'natural' order are generally considered extraordinary or anomalous.

I still find it a perwerful message though when you see someone clean their life up with the help of a "greater power" (12 steps program).

12 stepping shows no conclusive statistical proof that it is more effective than secular or atheistic measures.

And you know... this looks a fucking hell of a lot like you're singing the praises of faith in the supernatural. What point is this serving otherwise? What do you mean by "powerful message"?

At 9/5/10 06:44 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Ok. Since you're so eager to call out a straw man. Who here has disputed - actually... of all the a thiests you've spoken to are been spoken to be...

haha er... 'of all the atheists you've spoken to or been spoken to by'

At 9/5/10 04:09 PM, dillongunter wrote: when you see someone clean their life up with the help of a "greater power" (12 steps program).

Actually, AA has the same % of success as people doing it by themselves or through non-AA means.
Haha AA sucks balls.

I'd find it sad actually if someone turned their life around and all that their new life hung upon was superstition.

I never quite said that either, i just said that to a determined skeptic, proving God is like trying to prove the existence of other minds.

Seeing as we have minds of our own and other humans are extremely similar to ourselves, the conclusion that other people have minds is quite well supported by the evidence and requires almost no faith to accept.

And on faith, religious people make all the same assumptions as scientifics and skeptics do, and ON TOP of those, they assume God exists.

It's not like skeptics are choosing reality and you're choosing God, you are choosing both the 'faith' of God AND reality.

And ultimately all you'd gain from saying God is just faith on the same level as accepting the universe is predictable is basically admit that you have no evidence to believe in God anyway.
Congrats!

To Bacchalanian: I apologize for not quoting this reply, I think it would take too many characters in this message so I just went on ahead and wrote this out as so.

It seems to me that you are taking too much of your argument from picking out what parts of my argument were attackable and on how I argued my case to begin with. Personally I am not a big fan of Ad Hominem style arguments so I will simply leave that at that.

In regards to your argument on faith, at least you acknowledge that it takes faith to believe in everything around you. My initial argument on this matter was that because we as individuals cannot truly prove anything especially if you're a determined skeptic. It takes the same faith to believe in everyday occurences as it does in the supernatural. That is one major point on my argument.

On your argument for the 12 step program, fair enough. I can see the point you're presenting, but I must raise one objection and that is that when someone finds themself without something to live for, they will find no reason to live. What I mean by this is that why the AA program is somewhat successful is that it gives people support, even if by your measures of support it is not that great.

And to be honest, what other things should someone that believes in God sing praises about? By powerful message, I mean powerful message. I mean that when someone changes their life drastically from living a life that is harmful to one that is productive, I see that in itself as a powerful message.

To poxpower: As I afore mentioned replying to Bacchalanian, I apologize for not quoting your reply. It would take too much space.

I also would like to thank you from refraining from Ad Hominems but I digress.
In your argument against AA, I would simply like to refer to the argument that I used above, when someone has nothing to live for, they will usually find no reason to live. AA does at least one good thing in giving people support, whick is crucial in fighting addiction. Granted people may overcome without it, it is simply a resource tool to use to gather support of people with a common problem.

In your arguments on the mind, you could view that there are other minds through that deductive reasoning, or you could use the Doubting Descartes philosophy of not being able to prove anything beyond yourself. Sure you have the ability to tell that there is something generating this response, but what exactly is it? Is it a program or is it a human? There are many computers out there designed to emulate human behavior. I've even found a few on newgrounds. Sometimes people are fooled into thinking that a computer program is a real person or has emulated consciousness when that is not the case. Anyways, the point is that there is no way to tell that everything around you is 100% real beyond a shodow of a doubt and this is just like with God. There is no way to prove either side of the spectrum correct, but it is a much larger argument than arguing whether or not your grandmother is real.

In your arguments on faith, I would like to poke a half joke at your word choice of assumptions because as you know what happens when people assume (lol). Anyways, when you talked about religious people assuming there is a God, you left out one major detail in that. That is that atheist also make a large assumption that there is no God. With both of these arguments being almost polar opposites and being such large points, one side will be making a rather large ass out of itself, or perhaps even both as we don't know what happens after we die.

I agree with you that people that believe in God, like myself believe in both God and reality as those who do not believe in God only believe in the reality to which they have been placed.

On your last remark, I see a major flaw in your argument in that you leave no room for an x variable. What I mean by this is that if the universe was predictable, there would be no unknown variables and at this time (maybe not in the future) there are a lot of unknown factors in the universe (accurately predicting systems without interefering with them through observation (E.G. The Huysenberg Uncertainty Principle)) <granted that's just one example but a biggie eh? But the argument that the universe can be predicted doesn't necessarily mean that God does not exist. After all, if God were to be the omnipotent creator of the universe, then that would mean that he wrote the laws by which we exist (Laws of Physics).

The Huysenberg Concept can be an example of a universe that would allow for a God to exist. After all, if God were to be observing and interfering in the universe constantly, then that would mean that God would be directly interfering with his course of plan, unless through his omnipotence, was directing the outcome towards one final ending (Determinism vs. Free Will argument). Granted the argument presented there does leave the hole for the question: Does free will exist? but a universe with God does not mean no free will. The answer i can provide right now, however shallow is that all-knowing and all-powerful beings can do literally anything they want. After all, that's the nature of God.

*apologies for the long post. I was trying to address all the counter arguments presented