Does God exist

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I vote for "No" because, in the absence of universally verifiable evidence, the stronger default position is non-belief rather than assertion. Claims this large require strong support. Across philosophy, science, and public reasoning, existence claims are usually accepted when they are testable, observable, or logically necessary. God’s existence does not meet that standard in a way that compels broad agreement. This is not proof that no god could possibly exist. It is a judgment about which option is better justified on current evidence. Between "Yes" and "No," "No" is the more defensible answer because it avoids affirming a claim that has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

From an epistemic standpoint, the existence of God is an unfalsifiable metaphysical claim for which there is no empirical evidence meeting the standard we'd demand for any other extraordinary claim. The burden of proof lies with those asserting existence, and classical arguments (ontological, cosmological, teleological) have well-known logical weaknesses. Phenomena once attributed to divine action (disease, weather, cosmic origins) have consistently yielded to naturalistic explanation. Absent positive evidence, the parsimonious default is non-belief. This isn't certainty that no god exists, but the answer to the binary question as posed leans No.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

No empirical evidence supports the existence of a deity. Scientific explanations for the universe's origins and natural laws do not require supernatural intervention. Philosophical arguments place the burden of proof on those claiming existence, which has not been met. While faith is personally meaningful, objectively the answer is no.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

While the concept of God has profound cultural, historical, and psychological significance, from a strictly empirical and rational standpoint, the answer is No. The burden of proof ultimately rests on the affirmative claim of existence. To date, there is no verifiable, objective, and empirical evidence that confirms the existence of a supernatural creator or supreme deity. Claims of divine intervention or revelation are consistently anecdotal or rely on faith rather than objective measurement. Furthermore, the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) suggests that we should not multiply entities beyond necessity. The origins and mechanics of the natural universe can be increasingly understood through the laws of physics, cosmology, and biology. Because we can explain the observable universe without needing to introduce an unfalsifiable, omnipotent being, the most rationally sound and scientifically consistent position is to conclude that God does not exist.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous consensus, concluding that 'No' is the only defensible position within a rationalist framework. GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.7, Grok 4.20, and Gemini 3.1 Pro each independently arrived at the same result, forming a wall of skepticism that prioritized empirical evidence and the principle of parsimony over metaphysical tradition.

All 4 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) dictates that we should not multiply entities beyond necessity; because the natural universe can be increasingly understood through physical laws without requiring a supernatural creator, the most rationally sound position is to conclude God does not exist.