It's tragic how simple-minded the "reasons for god(s)" turn out to be. But as religionism is essentially nothing more than a failure of intellect, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that the "philosophical / ontological" arguments should be so palpably threadbare and inherently silly - for they all assume the thing they set out to "prove" which is hardly the right way to proceed. By precisely the same set of "arguments" I can "prove" there are one million invisible dancing chickens sitting on my laptop keyboard as I type these words. And - best of all - according to the logic of the arguments presented here, no one can disprove this claim.

Which is why intelligent people don't waste their time with godbabble but instead refer godbabblers to Truzzi's dictum: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

In the absence of even the flimsiest scrap of which, rational people simply choose not to waste their time on an empty and intrinsically meaningless proposition.

Nietzsche was wrong: god isn't dead, but rather utterly pointless.