Yes, those are valid arguments! Maybe I should have reformulated it to "a real god is better than an imaginary god" directy, then that does not work anymore. Bu

Yes, those are valid arguments! Maybe I should have reformulated it to "a real god is better than an imaginary god" directy, then that does not work anymore. But I am no expert either ;) The real way to break it down is by attacking (1). One common answer is that this does not prove the existence of the "biblical god" at all. Nothing about an omniscient creator God in heaven. It just proves there is a "best" thing. For all we know it could be a potato. Another way is to say that by accepting (1), we basically already assume a God exists. So, nothing new was concluded by proving he does. This logical flaw is called "begging the question". Although not everyone agrees if that is the case here.