The following arguments against the existence of God are legitimate.

It has been rather challenging. Argument A I would like to clarify what is accused to be a contradiction. People have choices. God knows what these choices are and what choices will be picked by the people through their own choice. God can therefore take advantage of this free will by controlling everything else to make certain events happen to fit His own plan. Therefore, predestination and free will at the same time. To differentiate free agency from free will, my opponent merely points to a dictionary, as if expecting me to open it up for him. However, if he wishes to show me to make an error in my explanations, he should be the one to open the dictionary, not me. As for John Calvin, he is not the Bible. He was merely a politician pushing his own political agenda. Anything cited by John Calvin should instead be cited here directly. Finally, my opponent claims that there is something in God's nature that would prevent delegation of free will. However, there is nothing in God's nature against this. Additionally, because God promised free will to all people, he can no longer take it back, as this would contradict his nature. However, by the given definition, God would still be omnipotent. Argument B My opponent claims that I have a burden to prove something in this debate. However, as outlined by the agreed-upon statements, my opponent must completely disprove the existence of God. I shall put it into a syllogism: E is "God does not exist. " A is a proposal in which God does not exist. a is a counter-proposal that also might be true as opposed to A. 1. If A, then E. 2. If most likely A, then most likely E. However, A must be proven to carry it out. Let me put this into an analogy: Guy A says, "The world is flat. " Guy B says, "But the world might be round. " A: "But it doesn't look round. Can you prove that it is round? " B: "Not yet, but. .. " A: "Then I shall dismiss your speculation as unproven, and declare my own unproven propostion to be true! " In this, the hypothesis that the world is round is not proven, and looks completely off, but turns out to be true. My opponent claims that Christian ethics are non-consequentialist. However, I have already asked for a proper citation of an actual Bible verse rather than a modern book, which my opponent has not provided. Therefore, this entire claim should be disregarded. My opponent claims that Holiness requires the Holy to not create evil. However, this is unsupported. Additionally, God did not necessarily create evil, but people who could be evil, because they could also be good. God decided that it would be BETTER to have people choosing to be good or evil than all people being good. If God set up human history so that it could not have sin, then free will is not being put into effect at all, which is what God does not want. Contention 5 My opponent claims that he has sourced his arguments correctly. However, my problem was that he sourced an entire website for one word in one verse. I asked that he source the exact webpage with the verse and translation. My opponent has declined to do this, instead citing an entirely different website, Biblos. However, the exact translation of Numbers 23:19 is "Nor a man God lie a son of man repent has He said Nor do spoken Nor make. " Obviously, a literal translation is very messy, and cannot be deciphered. A grammatical translation, like the one provided by the NIV (around which this debate centers), is more appropriate. As for my opponent's translations, even if we give him the verses to be true without proper source, he has still violated the rule that he must use the NIV. He claims that his argument is not about God's attributes; however, that means that he is not disproving God. He is merely disproving the possibility of God having done certain things on the basis of them being contradictory. If he wants to use them to disprove God entirely, he must call them attributes, and in that, he must use the NIV. Contention 3 My opponent claims that the teleological argument makes God improbable. However, it should be pointed out that it also makes the universe improbable, and yet the universe exists. As for why God created, I don't know. The Bible doesn't say, and my opponent is free to speculate. My opponent claims a collision of dimensions could create time. However, such a collision would have to be a change, and time is the medium through which change occurs, so time would have to have started before such a collision. Eventually, by the end of the paragraph, my opponent turns this contention into Occam's razor, which is explained in Contention 6. Contention 4 My opponent's link about Plank levels is broken. Here it is: . http://discovermagazine.com... Now, this only claims that time might not exist; at the very least, we do not have the ability to record time with such small mass. However, just because we cannot record it does not mean that it cannot exist. The article itself suggests being agnostic about the whole thing, and agnosticism cannot disprove anything except gnosticism, which is irrelevant. My opponent claims that a singularity is the first action of causation. However, could God not have been the supernatural force behind this singularity? Finally, my opponent doesn't even end this contention with a disproof of God, only saying that God would have to have done something in the metaphysical sense of time, which is perfectly possible. In conclusion, this contention doesn't even really try to disprove God, but instead to make Him seem unlikely. However, the ultimate conclusion need not be "God might not exist," but "God does not exist. " Contention 6 This seriously does not make any sense. I have cited that Occam's razor is not a logical principle, and that Occam's razor would have been wrong in certain situations. My opponent's premise entirely relied on the idea that Occam's razor can disprove things; I have shown that it cannot. My opponent does not contest my sources or my conclusions; however, I have contested his major premise, that Occam's razor is actually useful. It isn't. I have shown all of my opponent's arguments to fall short of his goal, "God does not exist. "