Take a look at the following argument:
1. Long term patterns over history rarely go astray
2. Over history science is progressing
3. Over history this progressive science is refuting many religious arguments
4. Almost no scientific discoveries support the existence of god, at least there are many more that do not.
5. Religious arguments have always been many and varied, now there are less.
6. These religious arguments, or arguments for god, have resorted to the origins, the origins of life, the origins of the universe.
7. Eventually science will discover the true causes of these.
8. Since scientific advancement usually is against god’s existence, this discovery will be against god’s existence.
9. Therefore, goes does not exist.
Hmm, looking at this argument it is easy to conclude god does not exist by simply looking at the simplicity of it. Over history, religion has always been an explanation for things humans to not understand. But as we are becoming more and more apt to the universe, and less people are holding such strong beliefs in god. 500 years ago, almost everybody was a fundamentalist Christian. Now we have liberal Christians and moderate Christians. In addition, much less people are believing in god, but instead believing in “something more”. Atheism is on the rise over the years, and science seems to de disproving god. Many years ago, god can be concluded to exist simply because science could not explain something. Instead of looking at almost anything in the world, religion now has returned to the origins of the universe. So now the two most powerful arguments are the cosmological argument and argument from fine-tuning. Here we go again, religion is placing god into the gaps, since science does not have perfect explanations for these phenomenon’s. Look at this argument which essentially turns the cosmological argument onto religion.
1. Everything has a cause except timeless states.
2. Infinite chains cannot exist
3. God must have a cause, or be timeless
4. Since infinite chains cannot exist, god is timeless
5. God must be enormously powerful and complex to create the whole universe.
6. There is ample evidence for many universes
7. God must be even more complex to create this many universes
8. A timeless god cannot be timeless when making many universes.
9. There is evidence for a timeless state called a multiverse
10. The multiverse theory is much less complex then the god hypothesis.
11. Occam’s razor says the simpler theory will almost always be correct.
12. The multiverse theory is an alternative to god.
13. The multiverse theory is simpler then god.
14. Therefore, god does not exist.
Note: Notice how this argument does not even require scientific evidence to be behind the multiverse theory. If I just randomly though of a multiverse, there is a much better chance that would be their hen a god who is governing every human movement and who is extremely complex.
I know that their may be a couple objections to this argument, but I shall dismiss them. You may be thinking that it would be easier to conclude that there is a god then a multitude of universes. Yet this god is based on no evidence at all despire the cosmological argument itself and the teleological argument which I will later dismiss. There is also scientific evidence for multiple universes, and it is actually a theory. It is impossible for god to create multiple universes and not be extremely complex. However, the idea of their being many universes does not contradict with god, and there are no other explanations for the evidence presented for many universes. So the actual idea of many universes does not contradict with god, so occram’s razor cannot interact with that relationship. However, the multiverse is a natural phenomenon, while god is a supernatural phenomenon which can design universes how they choose, and influence humans. God supposedly thinks, while the multiverse is not alive and is a blind force of nature. In addition, the universe does not necessarily need a first cause. The universe expands and contracts an infinite number of times, allowing it to never have a first cause. Having disproved the cosmological argument, I will now go to the fine-tuning argument. This is probably the most powerful argument at the moment, and takes a sophisticated refutation. This argument states that the universe was “fine-tuned” for life, and that this must have been because of a god. First of all, their was probably an infinite number of universes, so the observer theory can be used. These universes each have different laws, so ours may be a unique one. In addition, life may not be as rare as we think. We have no true way of knowing if life cannot exist in universes with different conditions then ours, which is evident in the recent discovery of hypothermal vents, a place where we thought life could never exist. We cannot conclude that god made us simply because we live in certain conditions which fit us.

Note: Some may argue that my first argument is invalid since their are some studies which support the existence of a god,yet they are mostly later dismissed once we learn more about the universe (ex: moral argument).