God does not exist.

These stories that Con has brought up wouldn't prove the existence of God even if they were true, which we have no reason to think they are. I'll now bring up my arguments:#1: Anti-Omnipotence (P1) God is supposedly maximally great.(P2) A maximally great being is omnipotent.(P3) An omnipotent being would have the ability to create a rock that is so heavy that the being cannot lift it.(P4) If it does this, there's something it cannot do;(C) Therefore, God nor any other being can be omnipotent or maximally great.The main objection to this argument is that an omnipotent being not being able to do something is self-contradictory, but this argument explains that no being can be maximally great or omnipotent, so the being was never maximally great in the first place, as no matter when the being tried to do this, it would prove to not be maximally great or omnipotent. Another objection is that I'm misunderstanding the definition of omnipotence, and that God cannot do anything that is self-contradictory, but as I've explained, it's not self-contradictory since no being can be omnipotent and therefore the being was never omnipotent in the first place, not the word 'supposedly' in the first premise.#2: The WSA argument from evil (P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good;(C) Therefore, there is no God who is all-powerful and all-good.I think this argument is pretty self-explanatory. #3: The argument from reasonable Non-belief (P1) God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and wants people to believe in him.(P2) God wants people to believe in him, so he'd be willing to do what it takes for people to believe in him.(P3) God is omniscient, so he knows what he needs to do for people to believe in him.(P4) God is omnipotent, so he is able to do whatever it takes for people to believe in him.(P5) Atheists exist;(C) Therefore, there is no God who is omnipotent, omniscient and wants people to believe in him.#4: The argument from Non-Cognitivism (P1) There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being: A. Primary Attributes - The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified.B. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise.C. Relational Attributes - What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute.(P2) B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.(P3) The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.(P4) Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)(P5) However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.(P6) Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless; (From 3, 4, 5)(C) Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.I look forward to Con's response.