The Abrahamic God Does Not Exist

Here are my arguments against the existence of the Abrahamic God:First ArgumentGod is superfluous. Here are the argument points: We needed many gods to explain things we did not understand Gaps in our previous understanding are now being explained by natural phenomena We now know that "God did it" is a non-answer This means that God is superfluous. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that this being does not exist Second ArgumentUltimate Boeing 747 gambitHere are the argument points (as made by Richard Dawkins): One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane," not a "skyhook;" for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that—an illusion. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with. We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer. Third Argument The problem of evilHere are the argument points: If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist. The first expounding of this argument was made by the Greek philosopher Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"Those are my arguments against the existence of the Abrahamic God. I look forward to hearing my antagonist's rebuttal. Best of luck.Sources:1. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print.2. "Epicurean Paradox." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 05 Mar. 2013. Web. 03 May 2013.