I agree, I think the god's of the myriad religions we have are mythological. However, it is one thing to state that the God of the bible is not real(he isn't), It's another thing to say that there is no God at all(Which you can't logically state.) It is perfectly within the realm of possibility that there is some entity that could fit the generalized description of God (From Wikipedia - The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence). There is nothing in science that precludes the above description of an entity from existing. We don't know enough about the universe to say, even within a reasonable doubt, that it is impossible for such a being to exist, hence why I find the debate of whether one exists or not philosophical, impossible to proove one way or the other.
How do you reach this conclusion? As far as I can tell, pretty much everything
in science precludes the existence of such an entity. First of all, there's the procedural matter of "locating the hypothesis." Why are we even talking about that
particular description of deity, instead of saying that science can't disprove the Goddess that is infinitely fluffy, infinitely blue, and infinitely feminine? Or the Heliopolitan Ennead, or the Great Tentacled Ones of Tau Ceti? To just use the Jewish/Christian/Islamic deity-concept as our starting point for no reason (i.e., in the absence of evidence to favor that particular concept
of deity over all others) is to engage in unscientific bias.
Second, the description is incoherent. For example, if it has infinite knowledge, then it would know the entire set of all its actions. However, if it had that knowledge, it would not have the option of choosing some other
action, hence, no options at all. Thus it would not be "omnipotent." Likewise, infinite knowledge is incompatible with "divine simplicity" since the catalog of the deity's items of knowledge (whether written down or stored in its mind) would represent an infinitely complex array, or at least very, very complex, if the set of all knowledge is finite.
Then, there's the matter of evidence. I've bolded the claim of "omnibenevolence" in the quote above because unlike the other "attributes," this one defines a particular pattern of behavior
. We cannot call someone "benevolent" (infinitely so or otherwise) if they never do anything, just as we can't say that a particular person is "the best chef in the world" if they have never cooked a meal and never will. The claim of "omnibenevolence," requires
that we be able to tell the difference
between infinite goodness, and finite goodness, finite evil, omnimalevolence, or indifference. If we can't tell the difference (i.e., there's no divine behavior to evaluate), then hidden "omnibenevolence" is equal to hidden "omnimalevolence," hidden "omni-mischief" or any other hidden claim of moral stature you could care to name.
The other infinite "attributes" leave no possible room for plausible deniability. "Omnipresence" means that the alleged deity cannot have the excuse of existing long ago in a galaxy far, far away. It is inescapably present here and now, by definition. "Omnipotence" means that its powers cannot be too weak or subtle for us to be able to observe the effects of its omnibenevolent behavior. To the contrary, its omnibenevolence must be maximally effective
, by definition. "Omniscience" means that we cannot fail to observe the alleged deity's omnibenevolence in action because it doesn't know we're here, or doesn't know how to go about arranging an omnibenevolent Universe. Nor can we say that "benevolence" as applied the deity means something other than "benevolence" as applied to other beings like humans or space aliens. That simply strips the word of meaning; it ceases to communicate anything about the alleged deity's nature.
At this point, theologians must resort to wildly baroque twists of spaghetti-logic and pseudo-explanatory loop-o-planes in their efforts to wriggle out of the trap they've set for themselves, and find some way, any
way, to be able to simultaneously assert that their deity is infinitely awesome in every way, yet said awesomeness should not be expected to have any effects.
"Free will!" So, infinite
efficacy can't possibly arrange for a Universe with "free will" that is also free of suffering (especially pointless suffering, such as children with leukemia, or caterpillars with parasitic wasp larvae eating them alive from the inside out)? "It's the Devil's fault!" Infinite
efficacy can't outsmart/overpower a finite Devil, or not create one in the first place? "Sin!" Infinite
efficacy can't figure out how to create a Universe without a countervailing infinite, hereditary, contagious (to animals, distant galaxies, etc. as a result of a guy eating a fruit) evil force? If the Universe as we see it, with all of its attendant injustice, suffering, failure, boredom, frustration, etc. is the very best that infinite divine efficacy
can accomplish, then how exactly is the deity supposed to go about creating "Heaven" in the sweet bye and bye?
So yes, we can say with as much confidence as we can say anything at all, that science (observation of the Universe we happen to live in) precludes the existence of an omnimax deity like the one you describe. If it existed, it would be a woolly mammoth in the living room of the Cosmos, too big (infinitely
big) to miss.