First Omnipotence: an omnipotent being is one that can do anything. If it can do anything, then logically it can create a task that it cannot complete. But if that is the case, then there is something that omnipotent being cannot do (complete the task), therefore making it not omnipotent. On the other hand, if the omnipotent being is unable to create such a task, then it is not omnipotent either.
God therefore cannot exist, which I have proven. That doesn't mean a religious person would listen to me and subsequently abandon their belief, so I would probably fail to convince most religious people, but I can still prove the impossibility of a God.
If you consult the dictionary, here is the first definition of God that you will find:
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."
Most believers would agree with this definition because they share a remarkably clear and consistent view of God. Yes, there are thousands of minor quibbles about religion. Believers express those quibbles in dozens of denominations -- Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists and such. But at the heart of it all, the belief in God aligns on a set of core ideas that everyone accepts
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
The impossibility of God is visible here as well. Based on Jesus' statement, let's assume that you are a child and you are starving in Ethiopia. You pray for food. What would you expect to happen based on Jesus' statement? If God exists as an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful parent -- a "father in heaven" -- you would expect God to deliver food to you. In fact, the child should not have to pray. Normal parents provide food to their children without their children having to beg for it. Yet, strangely, on planet Earth today we find tens of millions of people dying of starvation every year.
Another way to approach the impossibility of God is to think about the concept of omniscience. If God is omniscient, then it means that he knows every single thing that happens in the universe, both now and infinitely into the future. Do you have free will in such a universe? Clearly not. God knows everything that will happen to you. Therefore, the instant you were created, God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. To create someone knowing that that person will be damned to hell for eternity is the epitome of evil.
As soon as your think about the concept of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being, you realize the impossibility of the concept. That impossibility is yet another way to see that God is imaginary.
An omnipotent being is one that can do anything. So then if there were indeed an omnipotent God, doubtlessly it could create a task that it could not complete itself. But then there would be something (completing that task) that the omnipotent being could not do, which makes that being non-omnipotent. On the other hand, if that omnipotent being is unable to create a task it cannot complete itself, then it is not omnipotent either.
I have proven that God doesn't exist, though most religious people would probably argue something like 'God is beyond human reason', or they would just not listen. I doubt that I could convince religious people that God doesn't exist, but I can prove it, as I just showed.
Stephen Hawkins has been the boldest physicists to make documentaries claiming proof there's no God.
There a number of issues with how Mr. Hawking says the universe could've popped into existence, just like protons pop in and out of existence as observations of quantum physics show.
But the more we know about quantum physics, the more it looks like something vastly different is happening at that level of existence from our own physical existence.
In fact, there's a clear, tangible barrier of magnetism separating the quantum world from the physical world. In fact, the quantum world acts like a foundation to the physical world.
Basically, this barrier of magnetism is what makes things physical. It makes matter solid. When you put a cup on a table, it’s magnetism that stops the cup from sinking through the table, or the atoms of your hand from blending with the atoms of the cup.
The very way things work on a quantum level are downright spooky, according to Einstein.
So it's not hard to argue that what's happening in the quantum world is not happening in the physical world. The precedent he's referring to has never been seen in the physical world, not even on a small scale, like say a cell or protein or something like that; something closer to the size of a proton.
There also seems to be some picking and choosing of one particular quantum law to establish the necessary precedent. There doesn't seem to be any case where any other strange quantum law would need to be manifested in the laws of physics.
Why is that? I’d say this kind is of a comparison is a reach; a grasp at straws; trying to prove something he can’t prove in the first place.
There are other holes in Mr. Hawking attempt to prove the Christian God couldn't exist, like twisting the logic of certain principles to demonstrate a point, while using the same logic correctly to show another point.
He said the universe came out of nothingness and that there's something called negative energy that balances out the positive energy of the universe. If you add the positive energy and the negative energy together, you'll get zero, or nothingness.
However he uses a man digging a hole in a field to show how negative energy came to be. The man is actually trying to build a mound - the positive energy, or the universe we perceive it - but as he digs, he's causing a hole - the negative energy.
But in this demonstration of how the universe could've came into existence without a creator, or cause, Mr. Hawking used a creator or cause so the demonstration would make sense.
If the mound is the universe, then the man is the cause, creator, or God. The field would represent God's kingdom or the material for the universe. He's inadvertently showing the universe needed a creator, while saying that it didn't need a creator.
Let me give you the 411. God does exist, and for many reasons. The bible has it all explained. God said let there be light, and the first step in the big bang theory is an explosion. Then God created the creatures of the sea, and the birds of the sky, and the creatures of the land, and finally humans. This is exactly in the correct order of evolution. So, the Bible had it right for so long and still today. Atheists: please explain.
Theist believe "God exists." as an undeniable fact. Logically, two opposing facts can not exist. This means that anything that contradicts a known fact must be false. Therefore, to a theist, anything that contradicts their god's existence must be false. No matter if there is proof, a theist can not accept it as proof.
Personally, this is why I think that theists tend to misunderstand things like the big bang. Because it shows evidence that something they know if fact may not be, their brain needs to make up flaws to justify dismissing it.
Anyway, there is no way to convince a religious person unless they are not taught in depth about their own religion so they tend to believe what people say. Does the world spontaneously appear by itself? No it doesn't. Compare it to everyday life, if you want to invent something, don't you yourself need to do it first? You don't wait for a miracle to happen, right? So if you claim that God does not exist, then this world, including yourself and all the life in this world in the first place, should not exist. So you will have a difficult time to convince us otherwise.