GOD IS NOT DEAD, GOD IS JUST SHIT

One problem, possibly the main problem, with humans is extraneity. I would define this as taking up their finite intelligence with infinite bullshit, in the process reducing their mental bandwidth to a tiny flickering pulse and rendering them idiotic in the face of the universe.

As philosophy is generally confined to a few autistes, the main source of human extraneity is still religion, and the centre of most religions is the "person" of God. Atheists, sensibly driven by an anti-extraneous impulse, claim that God is dead and use several well-known arguments to "prove" that God is fake bullshit. Strangely these arguments fail to work. (It seems that the urge to combat extraneity has fallen into its own trap of extraneity!)

Let's just look up some of the main God arguments available on the internet. Here are 5 found at The Big Think (link) which are used to either "prove" or "disprove" the existence of the Big Guy. I have paraphrased them (slightly):

(1) The cosmological argument: The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe must have a cause for its existence. Therefore, God...Erm, but, hang on, who caused God?

(2) The Auschwitz argument: God is almost always defined as a good dude of infinite power. How could he then allow bad shit like Nazis killing 6 million Jews to happen? (LOL, that's because of the infinite good of "free will," bro.)

(3) The teleological argument: The complexity and beauty of the Universe shows that the Universe has a "Almighty Creator" or "Divine Architect." Or maybe it's not beautiful and is just shitty and chaotic, like a 1960s housing scheme in Northern Britain. 

(4) The undetectability argument, or the "No, you prove it" argument, aka "Russell's teapot" after an impossible to detect teapot that Bertrand Russell, in a thought experiment, said was orbiting the World, or likewise the impossible-to-detect dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage.

(5) The ontological (nature of being) argument. Rene Descartes came up with this try-hard explanation for God's existence: "God, by definition, is a perfect being. A perfect being possesses all possible perfections. Existence is a perfection. Therefore, God necessarily possesses the quality of existence." The denial of this relies almost equally on ontological BS: "Existence is not a part of the concept of something, a quality, or a predicate" (Kant).

Of these five "essential" arguments/debates, we can easily dispense with (2) and (3) because they just deal with subjective human "feels" and "opinion," and can't be used to prove or disprove a God who is supposed to be transcendent far above such petty things and trivial beings. 

We can also discard (4) and (5) as they are clear examples of sophistry and fart-sniffing. 

The most interesting argument is (1) as it reaches into the question of the very nature of the universe. Usually this argument, while starting out promisingly enough, descends into a sterile stalemate between a Universe-with-no-beginning and a God-with-no-beginning and which one is the "most noest beginningest." An occasional cancerous compromise is sometimes attempted by saying "um, maybe the universe is God and God is the universe."

The fact that the Universe is not some cuddly old guy with a beard but a lot of weird science shit going on forever makes it easier to imagine the Universe as the primeval aspect, rather than God. I mean how would the Big Guy even amuse himself for the endless eons before "deciding" to create the Universe?

What comes out of a rudimentary consideration of these issues is that any God, which religionists can scrape together a meagre case for, would be such a totally inhuman entity that would have no more interest in humans than lice have in maggots, effectively useless for all the uses that humans have put him to throughout the ages.

God is not alive or dead, God is just shit. He is just a zombie extrusion of the human propensity to project and lose ourselves in extraneity, irrelevance, weakness, and emotional masturbation.