You are indulging in the illogic of circular reasoning. You start with the assumption that there is no God and arrive at the conclusion that there is no God. The assumption that there is no God is not even one of the axioms proposed, and that assumption is inconsistent with the purpose of the exercise. You may note that all your answers to the 10 questions all point to Q. 1. And your answer to Q.1 is an assumption not related to any of the axioms from which the answers should be derived.
You missed the point altogether. The purpose of this exercise in logic is to create a God by the use of mathematics. I named it the ultimate paradox -- the God created by atheists.
The mathematical method is to start with a few axioms, then, by the use of logic come out with a system of theorems consistent with the axioms. The point is: What sort of a God will arise out of those axioms? What will be His/Her/Its attributes?
Don't fall prey to the same error that theists fall into - they make up their minds on one thing then close their minds to other view-points. They say, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts." Some minds are like concrete, all mixed up and rigidly set. Pascal was a mathematician and would understand the value of this excercise in logic.
This should be an interesting exercise to develop those mental muscles of participants.
doone The meaning of an axiom is a set of simple statements, that remain unproven, from which everything in that mathematical system is derived. You may note that the existence of god is not among the axioms proposed. The first 6 just define the properties of that concept of God if It indeed exists. So 6 can be read "If God exists She must be all good." The others may be read similarly. You may also note that, in my initial discussions from those axioms, 6 was eliminated as untenable.
You may now note that the purpose of this exercise in logic is not to prove the existence of God. The purpose is to create a God. - a mathematical God of atheists, a concept I called "the ultimate paradox". It is to find the attributes of a God that will arise from these unproved statements. - and his relation to our universe or multiverse.
'Universe' as defined in that scenario is all that is in existence - all that is. It can be taken to mean the set of all universes that comprise the multiverse. Since all there is, is in this multiverse, all matter, energy, time and space, it forms a closed system.
7. Define conscious simulations. You can't deny that you exist, and that you are aware of yourself and the stimulations caused by things outside you.
8. The sum total is zero, true. But energy is that unbalance. So long as there is an unbalance above and below a neutral point, there is energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system everything is going downhill to that neutral point of zero energy and zero matter.
9. The sum energy of zero, as posited by the 2nd law, can exist only in a closed system. In an open system where energy can leak out, energy can also leak in. Then no conclusion can be made regarding this universe. It is more productive to posit that this universe, together with all the universes in the multiverse, form a closed system.
10. It is true that a person's ethics reflects the sum total of all genetic and environmental factors impacting him. However, many psychological experiments on babies, insulated from parental and other people's influence, show common characteristics - the need to believe in something to explain things around him. There seems to be a universal urge to create a God, a need not imposed from the outside. The similarity of these insulated children's explanations indicate that the genes causing them are the same.
To Aliqs Suguitan:
First of all, you're talking about a god deduced with logic, not mathematics. There is a difference. I'd love to see the god equation.
Then you went on to accepting 9 axioms for reasons I can't really see, but the thing that I really don't get is this one:
I will also assume that man's consciousness continues in his deathless soul after he dies. I make this assumption, because I do not want consciousness to end with death.
Is not wanting a proposition to be true reason for accepting its negation? If I get a dangerous disease, for example, is it wise to accept that I don't have it because I wouldn't want to have it? I bet that, by accepting this axiom, I can elaborate a lot about my health and the health of others even, but that doesn't change the fact that my initial axiom was wrong. Deductive reasoning can bite you in the ass, if the axioms are wrong.
And also, the axioms in math and logic are definitions of concepts on which other concepts are built, not accepted truths about the real world. These axioms can be changed and we can deduce other things by doing so. It's just like you said about the non-Euclidian geometries. I mean, it is not a universal truth that, "for any given line ℓ and a point A, which is not on ℓ, there is exactly one line through A that does not intersect ℓ", as stated by the Wikipedia article. We just defined the coneptual reality as such in order to see what we can deduce, but when we refused to accept this axiom, in fact changing the definition of parallel lines, non-Euclidian geometries emerged.
Anyway, my point is that axioms are made to exist only in concept and should not be accepted as truths about the real world, in which there are hypotheses, which have to be falsifiable, but not axioms.