The following arguments against the existence of God are legitimate.

Thank you, J.Kenyon, for deciding to debate this with me. I will divide my opponent's statements up into separate arguments, and then refute them. 1. The problem of evil. I would like my opponent to source from the Bible where it says that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. There are many explanations to the problem of evil: A. Evil is a necessary conclusion of free will, as if one cannot have the ability to do evil, there is no free will. God decided that it was better for everybody to have free will than for there to be no evil in the world. B. Humans cannot understand the purpose of evil in general, much the same way as an infant views a vaccination as torture rather than protection. 2. God is self-contradictory One definition of omnipotence: "A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie)" [1]. This definition would fit most logically with how the Bible describes God, as Hebrews 6:18 indicates. This is the only possible definition of omnipotence that the Bible could mean, as it clearly supports the very definition. Therefore, because God's nature is Holy, Immutable, and Eternal, He cannot destroy or change Himself, and He cannot sin. As for the problem of the stone, God's nature, like everyone else's nature, would be logical, if one assumes that all things must follow logic, so therefore, God would only be able to do what is logical. Additionally, if God declares a rock to be so heavy that He cannot lift it, then He would be unable to lift the rock and still be omnipotent. 3. Reverse Teleological argument If my opponent's premises are true, then not only would God not exist, but also the universe, as it is complex and precise. As the universe exists, my opponent's premises must be false, and the entire argument falls apart. 4. Reverse Cosmological argument My opponent concludes that there must be an unending chain of causes in the universe. However, this would be impossible, as there must be a starting point in time. Allow me to demonstrate with my Parade Analogy: Say that you and numerous fellow men were marching due north on a completely flat plane at a steady rate of 1mph. You have no clue how long you've been marching, or where you came from. For all you know, you've been marching forever. One day, you and your fellows come across a jet, and you decide to take this jet due south at an amazing speed of 1000mph. The question is, will you come to the starting point of the parade? The answer must be yes, because the answer cannot be no. If you, with your 1000mph jet plane, never reach any kind of starting location at all, even travelling just short of forever, then how could you and your friends have possibly marched in the opposite direction at a slower speed? Therefore, the chain cannot be unending, even if we discard space and matter (although we cannot discard time, as time is the medium through which change occurs), and there must be something uncaused (God). As for "special pleading," it is not entirely fallacious. My opponent would have to prove this case of special pleading to be false in some way, and show that God cannot be in a separate dimension (which is entirely possible), or else he cannot disprove God. 5. The Bible shows God to contradict For comparing Numbers and Malachi with Genesis, it is clear that differing definitions of "repent" are used [2]. Definition 1 is used to describe man repenting his sin to God, while Definition 2 is used to show God's regrets. Different definitions, no contradictions. As for Abraham, God tested Abraham, not tempted. Tempt: "to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain" [3]. As sacrifice to God, commanded by God, is not wrong, it is not tempting. The James verse clearly uses this definition of "tempt," as 14 directly addresses "evil desire." Additionally, the Bible does not state that God didn't know what Abraham would do. He did know, but also wanted Abraham to know what he was willing to do for Him as well. As for human sacrifice, my opponent's accusation of "barbaricness" is merely an opinion. Additionally, the verse clearly addresses making a son or daughter pass through the fire. Jepthah first tells his daughter about his dilemma, and she agrees to be a sacrifice by her own choice. He did not make her be a sacrifice; in the end, she chose to be a sacrifice. 6. Occam's razor As this is a sixth argument, when the limit is clearly five, this can be easily dismissed, and therefore should not be continued by my opponent. However, as I have some characters to spare, I will point out that this argument, assuming indeed a lack of proof while the Bible shows otherwise, could only conclude God's probable nonexistence, or that one should assume God not to exist. Otherwise, one would conclude that the photon did not exist, or that Unununium could not exist, or that the world is flat, in 1000 BC, and be clearly wrong. With that, it is up to my opponent to defend his arguments. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...