ATHIEST! Can you refute this fool-proof logical argument for the existence of God?

Your specific god is called Ergo? That's an odd name

My position on the matter of God's existence:

NATURE IS THE ABSOLUTE LIMITING FACTOR

Premise: There is nature. Nature is all we know and all we are, it is the beginning and the end, from the small to the large: Nature is everything.

Disproof of God:

If God is supposed to be without limitation, while nature imposes limitation, then this God has no nature, therefore God cannot exist, thus God is non-existent.

If God is supposed to be with limitation, while nature imposes limitation, then God is with nature, therefore God is subordinate, and thus not supreme.

If God is supposed to be supreme, then, by the above arguments, that God cannot exist, therefore God cannot exist, thus God is non-existent.

If God is supposed as not supreme, and therefore subordinate, then god is under and subordinate to the ordination and will of nature. Therefore God is just another form of sentient life, with a cause just like we do.

If God is supposed to have created the universe, well: Stephen Hawking begs to differ and has disproven that this is possible in his famous appearance on the discovery channel hit show Curiosity episode “Did God create the universe?” in which he demonstrates how the universe could auto-create itself from nothing, a timeless point-like beginning.

If God is supposed to have created life on Earth, well: at best God is an extraterrestrial form of life that planted the seeds of life on Earth, and then God let life run its own course. This God controls nature only to extent that any advanced form of life could.

If God is supposed to be existence, well, things exist and by things only is there existence, things arise out of nature, existence is determined by nature, therefore this God is merely the sum effect of nature. This God is not conscious, except within those points in existence where life has sprung and where sentience has arisen. In essence, we are the portals by which God sees. We are disconnected brains, thus God is divided into separate disconnected parts. Therefore, God is not on a whole conscious like single intelligent would; instead God is expressed in the many unique individual sentient lifeforms.

I'm not an atheist, but i know this is no "fool-proof logical argument". This is "you can't explain it, therefore it was god". that's like saying if i can explain something, god doesn't have anything to do with it.

this isn't an argument, this is your claim that god exists.

-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.-

-Faith is believing what you know ain't so.- Mark Twain

-If the Universe needs a creator, why doesn't god?

If god doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe ?-

-I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.-

You also clearly cannot play chess.

Checkmate? Agreed, you are stupid. Science does not have all the answers. What they don't do is not question a 2000 year old book.

There's no objective evidence that cheese tastes awesome, so it's not a good argument. I'd replace it with bananas fitting perfectly in your hands.

Just a little private aside to prevent you from embarrassing yourself any further:

1. It is none of your business telling others what to believe and what not to believe.

2. Those who are secure in their faith do not have to spend one minute attacking the

beliefs of others. The more you berate atheists, the more it appears that you are not

completely sure that your approach to belief is the only right one.

Easily, said with a bored yawn.

When it comes to God, humans are weird stuff.

Your move. Wake me up when you come up with an at least half interesting move

Aww, damn. Now I have to rethink my entire position on the universe because of this well-thought-out argument.

Good argument.

We should shut down all science institutes immediately.