I believe that this is your argument:

1. If humans are not aware of a god, then that god doesn’t exist.
2. We are made aware of a god.
3. Therefore that god begins to exist.

I take issue with this because at one point someone had to have imagined a god and then subsequently written about it which means that they “invented” that god. And then if anyone imagines a god, then that god would exist. Which some may not take issue with, but if true, there would be no reason for organized religion because we could all have personal gods. Religion could definitely have been a coping mechanism for earlier humans who did not have all the knowledge and answers that we have now, but following the logic of your argument there never would have been the rise of organized religion.

As scientific discovery has exponentially increased in the last 200 years, atheism has become more commonplace. Some might argue that atheism has increased in popularity because we think we know everything about the universe or almost everything so we don’t think we need a god for explanations of the unknown anymore. While others would argue that it is a true mindset, it is false and we still should rely on God .

My final thought is if a god is omnipotent and omniscient, then they wouldn’t need humans to believe for them to exist. If they did, then they would not be omnipotent.

1. If humans are unaware of a god, then that god does not exist to us.
2. That god exists somewhere outside of our realm of knowledge.
3. So, we do not need to be aware of a god for it to exist.

Ballarack,

You seem to have intriguing thoughts, but I have taken issue with a few of your premises/ statements.

In the 2nd paragraph you claim that if a god is omniscient, that it must know what it is like to be a human, and from that you said it has to be a human being. I think it is an error to conclude it has to be human. If we are its creation, and it is omniscient, then it can know our thoughts, as well as all knowledge of its creatures, and knows everything about its creation. Following your line of thought, if it has all knowledge of its creation and their experiences, then it would be all of its creation, not just humans. That god would be in the plants, animals, microorganisms, and humans, it would be everything. And then they would no longer be dependent on each other to exist because they are one.

1. If a god is omniscient and created the universe, then the universe is dependent on god to exist. (as long as god exists, the universe exists)
2. God ceases to exist.
3. The universe also ceases to exist.
4. Therefore, that god is its creation, the universe.

In the third paragraph you mention if the god is omnipotent then it is constrained to logical acts, and if it performed random things then it wouldn’t be omniscient, and if it can’t do random things it is then not omnipotent. This raises the questions: does an omniscient being have to know its own thoughts and actions to be omniscient? I think not If that god is aware of its own nature and powers and that it is in fact a god, then it knows everything about its creation, it does not need to know what it will think or do say tomorrow or 5000 years from now under our time constraints, because it is not of it’s creation. So, an omniscient being can be omniscient, omnipotent and do random things. If said being has created logic in itself, then it would also know that illogical things are and would very much be capable of performing illogical acts, but it would have no reason to do any illogical act except for its own entertainment.

In response to your third paragraph, said being could do many things at once, but it created the universe and put us into time constraints and bound us to those time constraints. its omnipotence does not imply that it would create the universe and all of the past, present we are in, and future at the same time as well. Rather, it created something and set it in motion, and then we created the so-called time slices you say.

In response to paragraph 4, yes time is just a construct whether created by humans or god(s). Whether one believes evolution, or Christianity, then positing that we are all manifestations of the same thing is correct.

@Zuhair

Isn't it MORE ethical to think that the source of good is not the same as the source of evil, that there are natural processes that can even be rational (but natural) that planned all Good things, and that opposes a vigorous natural but separate chaotic stuff that is the source of evil, that the first good natural processes are taming over time, thus resulting in "evolution" .

One of the views that combines the laws of thermodynamics, especially entropy, and a god is deism. In which one believes there is a god that created the universe and actualized the world we live in, but after his creation, decided to sit back and allow the world to run its course. Which allows evil, entropy, and natural disasters to take place. Could this god be the benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity?

I would like to argue that yes it could be.

God created us with freewill so that we would love him of our own choice, not out of his choice/ force. So, he decided that he would create a world for us, place us in this world, and then remove himself from this world so that we would know that we are acting entirely of our own accord. One might look at this situation and say well why did he need to remove himself if he wasn't going to be tempted to change our decisions? I would reply that He didn't remove himself for his own sake, but rather for our own sake. Another might rebuke with the statement, well then he must not love us very much if he is willing to leave us to fend for ourselves against the evil that the world and humans create. And to this I would reply, that God clearly values our own freewill over us living in a perfect world where we never experience evil because we don't have freewill. One could also insert the soul-making theodicy, but I do not particularly appreciate that idea. To me it is saying that God didn't make us right the first time around when he placed us on earth, that instead he placed evil around us to make us into beings fit enough to live in harmony with him in Heaven. My idea is that he gave us freewill which allowed evil to enter the world and natural disasters because he has removed himself from our world, so that we could choose whether we want to follow him freely and spend our afterlife with him in Heaven, or we'd rather choose to not follow him and perhaps end up in Hell. As for the fact that God has to have made each and everyone of us, he indirectly has because he created the first human beings who in turn have created every human since.

1. God created us to have freewill, and the world to be initially good and without evil.
2. God removed himself from his creation after finishing.
3. Evil exists today
4. Evil exists because God created us with free will and removed himself from the world he created, letting us and the world run its course.

On another note, good and evil are selfish labels we assign to things that negatively and positively affect us. But nature is an unthinking and unfeeling “thing” it does not think about its actions, it simply does. Perhaps the “evils” of natural disasters like forest fires, earthquakes, tsunamis are a way to make room for new life to be born. Same thing with death, if we never died, then eventually there would be no more capacity for new human life. Perhaps humans need to die, to make way for life to continue either in a new human form, or let a different species thrive. Its only evil because it negatively affects us. Likewise good things affect us positively. So are doctors good because they usually prolong life? Most would argue yes. But what about the overpopulation of the planet? And the pollution that goes along with overly crowded areas? In this perspective doctors are evil by perpetrating the abundance of human life, and preventing natural deaths that would otherwise occur. So the "evil" that we think God allows, is only evil because it negatively affects us.

Say God is timeless, changeless, and the greatest being. When God created time, if he did depending on what scale of time you believe, he made a change. While he still experienced change around him, he himself did not change. One can be surrounded by the change they bring about it, without that single act of change causing change to them. Just as God can create time and subject us to it, he can remain outside of the restrictions of time. Say I invent or create a device that assists people with writing their address on an envelope. I have created a change, yet I remain the same intrinsically as I was before. I could have more money and the title of inventor, but I remain myself. Even using my own product would not fundamentally change me. Unless, one would argue that growing in mind and thought changes you, then by creating this invention, or learning any new piece of information would change me.

This is my original thought formation of my argument, however, premise 1 has a major issue because it does not contain any supporting evidence.

1. A being brings about change through some action. Said being is surrounded by that change, then said being can remain unchanged.
2. God a being, brought about time, a change in his surroundings.
3. Thus God can remain changeless even if bringing about change.

Here is my revised argument:
A being surrounded by change has the choice to change or remain unchanged.
God is surrounded by the changing of time, but chooses to remain unchanged.
God is not changed although he is surrounded by the changing of time.

God can remain unchanged because he is omnipotent.

Assume: there are TWO omnipotent beings, x and y.

1. x is omnipotent
2. y is omnipotent
3. If x is omnipotent then x can kill y
4. If x can kill y then y can be dead
5. If y is omnipotent then y can't be killed
6. If y can't be killed then y can't be dead
7. y can be dead AND y can't be dead (contradiction)
So, our assumption that there are TWO omnipotent beings is false. This reasoning can be applied to any number of Gods.

Line 5- omnipotence does not mean the inability to die, it means they have the choice to die or not. Technically speaking an omnipotent being has unlimited power so they could make the choice to live or die.
The whole premise is also putting human limitations onto omnipotent beings. Why would beings with unlimited power even be interested in killing each other when they could do anything that their nature allows them to?
Gods are not biological beings, so can they even die or be killed?
So could it be logically deduced that only 1 omnipotent god exists? Yes, but not from this argument form. However, as aforementioned not all gods are omnipotent, so more than 1 god could exist at the same time. Omnipotence is really an attribute that monotheistic religions assign to their gods. Most polytheistic religions do not have 1 omnipotent god. Here is my argument proposing that more than 1 god may exist.

If a god is omnipotent, then there is only 1 god.
Not every god is omnipotent.
Therefore, more than 1 god may exist.

Here is my proposed argument for 2 omnipotent beings existing at the same moment in time and space. I chose not to use words like kill and die because that is putting human weakness and a power we lack onto higher beings.
Omnipotence means having unlimited power and the ability to do anything that omnipotent being wants to.
There are 2 omnipotent beings X and Y.
If X is omnipotent it can attempt to cause Y to cease to exist.
If Y is omnipotent it can choose to not exist at the hands of X or not.
Omnipotent being Y can attempt to cease X’s existence.
X can choose to not exist at the hands of Y or not.
Thus, 2 omnipotent beings can exist at the same moment in time and space.