Should one believe in gods and spirits? A controversial question, and one that I think should be answered by summarizing the arguments for and against, and then reaching a conclusion from there. I have presented what are, in my opinion, the most influential or convincing arguments from each side.

• Teleological Argument (Design): The Universe is so complex that it must be designed, as such complexity could not have arisen without an intelligent creator. If something as simple as a watch requires a creator, then the Universe - vastly more complex - should as well.
  • Counterargument: David Hume's counterargument is that we have not witnessed a Universe being designed, nor have we witnessed any comparable situations, so there is no reason to suppose that this complexity demands an intelligent creator. In other words, we cannot extend the analogy of man-made objects like watches to the Universe, because the Universe is not much like a watch.
  • Counterargument: We have empirical evidence of processes that can create complexity out of much simpler circumstances. For example, a preponderance of evidence supports the idea that modern complex species have arisen through natural selection over millions of years, without needing an intelligent creator. We can also model the formation of the Universe using simulations where the original parameters were not "intelligently" created by the simulation's designer, but rather through random noise and observed physical laws.
• Cosmological Argument (Cause): The Universe exists, and all things that exist must have been caused by something, so the Universe must have a cause. Any such cause would satisfy the definition of God.
  • Counterargument: David Hume's counterargument is that we have not proven that all things must have a cause; causality is a useful construct to have, and one built off observations, but is still a construct of humans. Causality doesn't really "exist" in nature - we only see event A consistently happening after event B, and assume B causes A. Thus, it is not necessarily true that the Universe needs to have a cause, especially given it is such an exceptional circumstance. This is supporting by observations in quantum mechanics, where particle behaviour is intrinsically random, and does not have a direct cause.
  • Counterargument: Even if the first part of the argument is valid (the Universe has a cause), the second part (that any such cause would be God) need not be. The Universe could be created as a simulation by an alien species (that does not have the properties of, say, the Christian God), or it could have been created by the formation of a black hole in another Universe, and so on.
  • Counterargument: Even if both parts were valid, we then run into the problem of infinite regress. If we suppose that the Universe has a cause, and that cause is God, what is the cause of God? What's the cause of that cause? If we are willing to embrace the idea that the Universe must have a cause, it is special pleading to then exempt God.
  • Counterargument: Some physicists argue that the question itself is nonsensical. The Big Bang created time, so it is meaningless to ask what existed "before" the Big Bang, such that it could "cause" the Big Bang. It's "like asking what is north of the North Pole."
• Ontological Argument (Essence): This argument, as backed by Anselm and Descartes, states that God is the greatest being that can be conceived of, and that a God that exists is greater than one that does not exist, so God must exist.
  • Counterargument: Hume's argument is that an entity's existence or nonexistence is not connected to its essence. In other words, a God that exists is not greater than a God that does not, because "existing" is not a quality of the being.
  • Counterargument: The same reasoning can be applied to many other situations, leading to absurd conclusions. A unicorn that exists is greater than a unicorn that doesn't exist. Since I can then conceptualize a "greatest possible unicorn," unicorns (or at least a unicorn) must exist. Worse still, perhaps I imagine the perfect Universe as one without unicorns. Then, we are in contradiction!
  • Counterargument: Even many believers find this argument unconvincing, such as Thomas Aquinas, who argued that this argument assumes that we can conceptualize God, which would be far beyond the ability of humans.
• Pascal's Wager: Rather than giving a proof in God, Pascal argues that you should endeavour to believe in God, regardless or whether it is rationally proven that he exists. Believing in God has the potential for infinite reward, so no matter how small the probability, the expected outcome is still infinite; and believing in God comes at a finite cost. Therefore, you should believe in God.
  • Counterargument: Voltaire's response is that Pascal's Wager fails to prove the existence of God (which was never really Pascal's intention). My interest in believing something is not related to the truth of that statement. If you desire to only believe in true things (which, personally, I do), Pascal's Wager is irrelevant.
  • Counterargument: Because many religions have differing, incompatible demands, choosing any particular religion jeapardizes you with other potential deities. Thus, the reward is nullified. (See: Argument from Inconsistent Revelations)

• Lack of Evidence: There is no direct evidence of God's existence.
  • Counterargument: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - just because there is no physical evidence of God's existence does not mean he does not exist.
    • Defense: The burden of evidence lies with the one making the claim - in this case, theists. There is no evidence that there isn't a teapot in an orbit between Earth and Mars, but it would be absurd to entertain the idea. When there is a lack of evidence either way, it is most reasonable to assume the negative.
  • Counterargument: The existence of the Universe itself is evidence of God. (See "Cosmological Argument" above).
  • Counterargument: There have been numerous "miracles" in the past that provide evidence for the existence of supernatural powers.
    • Defense: Hume argues that, in order for the record of this miracles to be reliable, the claims of those who witnessed miracles would need to be more numerous or more credible than the claims of those who support the physical laws those miracles would break. Since the historical record of these "events" are unreliable and humans are psychologically prone to believing in such exciting events, while physical laws are supported by a vast amount of evidence, it is very unlikely that miracles ever happened.
• Argument from Inconsistent Revelations: There are many different religions practiced in the world and infinitely many more possible religions. Given the incredible amount of variety, they are not describing the same truth, and it is impossible to pick one based on reason alone. Perhaps there is a God, but he may even reward nonbelief in him!
  • Counterargument: This does not disprove the existence of God, only cast doubt on there being a single correct interpretation of God.
    • Defense: That there is such variety in descriptions of God suggests that those descriptions are not of a real thing, else the descriptions would most probably be more consistent. (Either that, or God revels in chaos.)

After weighing these arguments, I have found that the arguments in favor of God's existence are generally weak and easily refuted. While there is similarly little proof of God's nonexistence, the burden of proof does ultimately rest on those claiming that he exists. Otherwise, we would be forced to accept any number of ludicrous claims. Thus, I conclude that God most likely does not exist, and as Pascal's Wager is not convincing enough to "believe" regardless of what seems most true, I do not believe in God (or gods, or spiritual entities, et cetera). However, owing to practical considerations (like not being shunned by the religious majority of the United States), I won't be too vocal or militaristic about this viewpoint.