The following arguments against the existence of God are legitimate.

I'll start by apologizing for failing to source God's omnibenevolence, I didn't think this was necessary since it is a universally held view that God is good, however, to fulfill my obligation, Psalm 25:8 "Good and upright is the Lord…" I gave two examples of God's omniscience in Acts 24:4 and Psalm 44:21. CON has given his own definition of omnipotence, which for the sake of argument I will accept. The characteristic is linked to the Abrahamic God by Revelation 19:6: "…the Lord God Omnipotent reigns." Henceforth, I will refer to my six arguments as contentions to differentiate between the major points and the subpoints, which I will refer to as arguments. I am dropping Contention 2 because of CON's excellent rebuttal and because I mistakenly included six contentions when he requested five. For Contention 1, CON gave two arguments, A and B. I'll start with Argument B. It is CON's burden to prove that evil IS being used for some higher purpose (not merely that it COULD), else his argument is nothing more than a fallacious argumentium ad ignorantium and should be disregarded. Even if this were the case, Biblical ethics are non-consequentialist, meaning the ends do not justify the means.[3] Just because doing wrong serves some higher good does not make it ethical. Torture, murder, rape, abortion, adultery, etc. are invariably wrong, even if one intends to bring about something good through his actions. This establishes the fact that evil does exist; it is not like the vaccine which is good, though the child cannot understand this. Furthermore, if God has control over history (His Perfect Will, or redemptive plan[2]), this contradicts his Argument A that regards evil as a consequence of Free Will, as do several verses I will bring up shortly. Finally, it is absurd to think that various mass murders and other atrocities that have occurred throughout history should be necessary to bring about His Perfect Will. An omniscient God could think of a better way based on his knowledge of human nature. Even if this were not the case, He could have made man in such a way that alternatives would have been possible. Again, the burden to prove that this is indeed the case lies with CON. This brings us to Argument A. It contradicts Argument B by conceding that evil does exist as a consequence of Free Will, whereas, to use CON's analogy from Argument B, a vaccine is not evil (it only appears that way to the child), in the same way that evil may not, in fact, be evil if it serves a higher purpose (God's Perfect Will). To return to my previous point regarding God's Perfect Will, there are numerous scripture verses highlighting the fact that man does NOT have free will (Romans 8:28-30 "…for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate…" and 9:10-24), as well as a whole body of work by Calvinist theologians emphasizing the fact that Free Will clearly undermines God's Sovereignty[4]. I'm going to skip to Contention 4, since it leads into Contention 3. CON sets up a strawman: "My opponent concludes that there must be an unending chain of causes in the universe. However, this would be impossible, as there must be a starting point in time." Note first that I never use the term "universe," which I take to mean everything that ever has or will exist; I prefer to say space, time, and matter since it is far more accurate and descriptive. Obviously there is no unending chain of causes within space, time, and matter; the chain of causes I was referring to exists outside of them. To quote: "Space, time, and matter have a definite beginning. They were caused by something APART FROM THEM…" Indeed, this has to be the case, just as it would with a hypothetical God, because it is impossible for anything within the bounds of space, time, and matter to cause its existence. CON's argument should be disregarded because it utterly fails to apply outside of time. Additionally, if we apply his objection to God's eternality, it serves as an argument against His existence, since CON claims that infinities do not exist. This also applies to Contention 3. God is described as the designer who gave complexity to the universe (here it is safe to say universe). My reversal on the classic Teleological Argument is that the complexity of God needs an explanation just as the complexity of time, space, and matter requires an explanation. My answer is that there is an unending chain of complex natural causes (there is no reason why a cause need be a divine, personal God). God cannot exist since he must, as the argument goes, be more complex than the universe to have caused it. His complexity is unexplained since by definition, God simply is. CON again misses the mark completely, since he has voiced no objection to the Principle of Uniformity which I have used to establish the laws of causality outside time, space, and matter while I have fully refuted his argument against the existence of infinities. For Contention 5 regarding Biblical contradictions, the word "repent" used in Num 23:19 is "vaiyinnachem;" meaning "to be sorry, console oneself." It is the exact same Hebrew word found in Genesis 6:6.[1] The contradiction stands. Young's Literal Translation renders the verse Dt. 18:10 as "…one CAUSING his son and his daughter…" CON's emphasis on the word "make" is purely semantic. The clear intent of the verse is an unequivocal condemnation of human sacrifice. The implication of CON's argument is absurd and clearly not in line with sound doctrine, since he is basically saying that human sacrifice is okay so long as the victim consents. Regarding God's decision to "test" Abraham, the Hebrew word "nissah" is used in Genesis while the Greek word "peirezomai" is used in James. Both have the same meaning: "to make proof of, to attempt, test, tempt."[1] Used in both contexts, it is clear that the word is intended to mean "test," rather than to tempt, as in to tempt one to sin. The contradiction stands. Regarding God's omniscience, CON has not given reason to believe that God wanted Abraham to know what he is willing to do for Him, only that this is a necessary view to hold in order to maintain a Christian worldview, all the while this worldview remains unproven. This is less likely than the alternative since there is no supporting evidence and we can safely assume that Abraham already knows what he is willing to do, as indeed every man does. It is an argumentium ad ignorantium and should be ignored. For Contention 6, my opponent claims that Occam's razor can't be used because there is proof of God's existence. He does not directly refute my argument, but claims only that the "Bible shows otherwise." This is tantamount to citing "Twilight" as evidence of vampires, or, more pertinently, the Qur'an for the existence of Allah, or the Vedas for evidence of Brahmin. It is CON's burden to show that his source is credible. He goes on to cite such examples as photons, and unununbium, or a flat earth. Occam's razor states that of any number of possibilities that EQUALLY WELL explain a given phenomenon, the simplest is correct. Obviously there is tremendous evidence that photons and unununbium exist and that the Earth is round, whereas CON has failed to prove that God is even a GOOD explanation for time, space, matter, and complexity, let alone BETTER than naturalistic alternatives. CON seemingly has no objection to my contention that naturalism is simpler, so it is all the more important that he prove God to be as good or better of an explanation. All we are left with is an arbitrary dislike for a concept that he doesn't understand. [1]http://biblelexicon.org... [2]http://www.comprehensivechristian.com... [3] "Understanding Ethics." Preston, Noel. Federation Press. 2007. [4] "Institutes of the Christian Religion." Calvin, John. 1537