The existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible.

I intend to prove unequivocally that the Christian God cannot be defended by logic or reason. I will do this primarily through exposing several major contradictions and criticisms of God, followed by ruling out the major arguments for logically supporting God and finally by explaining how faith, the last remaining argument cannot function as a reasonable means of proof. Firstly then, within the very idea of a Christian God lies several intrinsic flaws. The inconsistent triad argument, states that you cannot have an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God (all of which are strongly argued by the Christian faith) in the same universe that sin exists. This is because surely a God which held all of these properties would be powerful enough to detect sin, and loving enough to remove it, and since this has not occurred, it implies that at least one of these propositions must be untrue. Yet if God is not omnipotent or omniscient, then he is not truly a God, and certainly not the Christian God of which the motion speaks. If God is not omni-benevolent, then this goes against the Christian concepts laid out in the New Testament of God"s agape love. As such, unless the opposition can provide a solution this problem, then the Christian God is logically indefensible. Another contradiction is less often used, however in my opinion is equally potent. The Bible for the Christian faith states that God is omniscient, and thus can know all that has ever been, all that is, and all that will be. Yet, it is believed by the majority of the Christian faith that free will is a core part of existence under God. These two propositions are contradictory, as if God knows the future of each and every human, what choices they will make, and how their lives will end. This means that humans cannot truly have free will, or that God is not omniscient. Furthermore, if the opposition argues that free will does not exist, and attempts to re-interpret such passages in the Bible which state that it does, then this once more proves God illogical. This is because this would imply that those who commit sin, and are thus condemned to eternal suffering, were created to do so by God, and have no choice in the matter. This means that God is not omni-benevolent because he is specifically damning members of humanity. If you can rule out both of these contradictions through logical means, then you may wish to argue Gods existence on one of the following key grounds: the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, both of which I will now disprove. If you hold any other logic based argument for the existence of God then please state it in your next argument so that I may address it. The cosmological argument states that since we can observe a chain of causation in existence, and that every cause needs a preceding cause, there must be a first cause, and this must be God. However, this is logically flawed, as shown by David Hume, who stated several criticisms. Firstly, that we are moving from our surroundings which we can practically perceive to have causes, to a vast universe wherein we cannot know if the same rules apply, in the quantifier shift fallacy, and thus you cannot infer from this evidence that a first cause or God exists. Secondly, that there is no reason why a chain of causes cannot go on forever, and infinity is a very realistic prospect, especially when supported by modern science revealing the eternal constants of matter and energy. Thirdly, that even if we were to believe this argument of causation, it is not at all that case that this proves the Christian God. Such a first cause could be a universal anomaly, or any number of other Gods, as Hume states, it could be "little green men. " The teleological argument as Paley states it takes the form of the argument from design. Paley stated that if you found a rock and a watch in the wild, you would assume the watch was designed where the rock was not due to its complexity, so there must be a designer for the universe, which must be God. Yet order in the universe can be entirely explained through methods other than God, for example evolution, and natural selection to explain DNA. Not only this, but as Hume stated the universe is more like a "cabbage than a watch. " This is because it is inherently unordered, with seemingly immensely chaotic events taking place on a galactic scale constantly, and evil and suffering on earth would also reveal either the failure of a creator, or that there was none. Thus there is no need for a God to explain the appearance of design. If then, the Christian God cannot be proven logical by the two key arguments in support of such, and the contradictions within his very existence, then faith is all that remains to support God. However, faith is not a reasonable form of argument, as I could suggest that there is a teapot in orbit of Pluto at present. I have no argument for such, and nothing to support it, but you cannot disprove it. This is clearly not logical and thus faith cannot align with the motion. And in conclusion, the existence of a Christian God is logically indefensible. Thank you for your time. -Invictus