The following arguments against the existence of God are legitimate.

God is the superlative form of all that he is. God is the most holy, the most powerful, etc. Goodness is defined as the absence of sin or evil. In this sense, no man is "good" because there is no man who has not sinned. Romans 3:10 "there is none righteous, no, not one." The character of God stands in stark contrast: Psalm 16:2 "in God there is nothing but goodness; and our goodness extends not to Him." John 3:20 "…for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything." Although "omniscient" and "omnibenevolent" do not appear in the Bible (since both come from the Latin, while the Bible is written mainly in Hebrew and Greek), for that matter, neither does "trinity," yet all three are universally accepted attributes of God that can easily be deduced.[1] In any case, "omnibenevolence" aside, the argument still stands for a God in whom it is said there is to be found "nothing but goodness." Since CON has not contested the logic, the argument should be pulled to the PRO side. Argument A CON contradicts himself. If something is destined or fated to happen, than any agent involved obviously has no choice in the matter. Here, CON fails to understand the difference between Free Will and Free Agency[4]. He has also ignored my point about how Free Will compromises God's Sovereignty (citing John Calvin). If God is not able to control individual actions, then he is not omnipotent. CON argues that He could have granted Free Will, however this contradicts the passages and evidence I have cited. Additionally, to do so would contradict His nature. As CON argues in his first rebuttal, "A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature." As with sin, God is not able to do anything that contradicts His nature, therefore He could not delegate away Free Will. Argument B CON misunderstands my point. I have not stated that his contention that evil is being used for a higher purpose is false because it is unproven, I am stating that it is his burden to prove that it is true. Saying that it "could" be true is not an argument. Anything "could" be true; the earth "could" have been created five minutes ago by a whimsical pink unicorn, but this, like CON's contention, is merely an unproven (not to mention extremely unlikely) possibility. To put it in formal logic: Where S is a subject, sp is a skeptical possibility, and q is a knowledge claim about the world: 1.If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q 2.S doesn't know that not-sp 3.Therefore, S doesn't know that q S is the debater and sp is the "evil is being used for good" hypothesis. Q is the actual explanation (which could be SP, since we don't know Q). This is incorrect. I have already pointed out that Christian ethics are non-consequentialist, therefore, even if evil is being used for good, it is still evil, therefore evil exists (therefore not SP), therefore, given God's other attributes, He does not exist. My source comes from page 40 of Noel Preston's "Understanding Ethics," as CON requested. Since this has been his only objection, the argument should be pulled to the PRO side. As CON has stated, even if we ignore my prior points regarding non-consequentialism and Free Will, God foreknew the events that would take place in the world prior to their occurrence. If we consider that no evil existed prior to creation (this includes all beings, both spiritual and physical) and God foreknew the results of His creation, then He knowingly created evil, which contradicts His Holiness (Isaiah 6:3 "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD.")[2]. This is where my argument against the Perfect Will comes from. It is simply, a bad plan. CON claims that all things can be predestined, yet Free Will remain intact. If this is true, then it is possible for God to predestine the course of human history in such a way that it would be without sin and thus not needing redemption. This explanation of evil is nothing but a post hoc attempt to patch up deeply flawed theology. Contention 5 CON requested that I give the specific page for my claims. Biblos.com/genesis/6-6.htm. The same pattern of "/book/chapter-verse.htm" holds true for every book and every verse in the Bible. I cited this as evidence supporting my interpretation of the NIV verse. CON has given no objection other than sourcing, however, it was only stated that attributes of God had to be sourced in the NIV (which I have since complied with); there was no such restriction on soteriological arguments, in which case a literal interpretation should obviously be preferred over one modified by a translator. The same applies to the argument regarding human sacrifice. I only cited the YLT as evidence supporting my interpretation. One cannot reject this any more than one could reject CON's arguments on the grounds that the debate centers on the NIV, not Webster's Dictionary! Since these have been his only objections, this argument as well should be pulled to the PRO side. Having covered all my specific arguments against the Christian God, I think it can safely be said that I won the debate. For the sake of argument, I will now cover my generic arguments against the possibility of a creator God. Contention 3 I used the teleological argument – that complexity requires an explanation – and that God is uncreated so his complexity is unexplained. Whatever created the universe had to have some explanation for its complexity. The teleological argument, rather than establishing God as creator, establishes God as highly improbable since he is by definition an unexplained complexity. The paradox of existence more aptly applies to God. If God is wholly satisfied in His person – perfect and unchanging, what gave Him the Will to create? Wants, needs, and desires are purely animal attributes. Surely, God cannot be lonely and in want of company? What can be a companion to God? Man would be to Him as a termite is to man. God is, as I stated earlier, the superlative in all that he is. He is the ultimate in terms of complexity, intelligence, etc. A great deal of complexity complicates a model of existence unnecessarily; to suppose that uncreated natural causes (a collision of dimensions or some other phenomenon) created time, space, and matter is far more likely. The argument from simplicity tips the scales in PRO's favor since any question as to what caused the causer applies equally well to God. God opens the door to a great number of unanswered questions. Contention 4 I did indeed use the Principle of Uniformity in my first round arguments. The uncaused causer need not be God; as I have shown in my previous arguments this is highly unlikely. At the Plank level (the smallest known unit of matter) it can be shown that time does not exist.[3] Time then, should be used in the metaphysical sense: to indicate the action of causation; when any change takes place anywhere in all of existence. PHYSICAL Time, (time as we know it is a physical phenomenon tied directly to matter) space, and matter began at the singularity as the first action of causation. It could not, be said that anything "caused" this interdimensional cause, since, as CON claims, causality implies time and time did not exist. If anything DID, cause them, it would be, as I established, in the metaphysical sense of time. Contention 6 With Occam's razor, as with any logical tool, the conclusion is only as valid as the premises. If one defines God as banana crï¿½me pie, one could argue thus: 1. God is banana crï¿½me pie 2. Banana crï¿½me pie exists 3. Therefore God exists This is no more an argument against the validity of the syllogism than CON's argument against Occam's razor. Given incorrect premises, one will arrive and an incorrect result. CON has not contested my premises, so the argument should go to PRO. [1]tecmalta.org/tft140.htm [2]pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_08.htm [3]discovermadiscovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time [4]dictionary.com