>>17761394
As i've mentioned before, ontological argument delves deeper into this. To sum it up, you can think of a being that is eternal, all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent. Anything more powerful, more knowing, or more good would replace it, so it could be imagined as limes in math if you will. If all of these values could be quantified it could always approach the one to God, but God would be the limit of it. Hence, if there were multiple gods, they would not be all powerful, and something would've been needed to create them, chaining a line back to something else more powerful. What you're essentially doing is asking if we constrain this being to a definition, and then examining how people see a deity and if it applies to this definition. Nothing exists to prevent this being from existing (other than the illogical, as nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God, since it's not reality; we can't percieve it). If you take your time to classify other metaphyiscal phenomena like evil, suffering and free will, like many religions did, this being would still not break the definition which we've constrained it to. (Hence, if there is something - it's a single deity.) So now that we've deduced that this being can exist, we can ask ourself it if does. The last part of this is dependent upon personal conviction and religion, as theists accept it while others don't.
