The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

I am not the kind of person who quits a debate. I think I see what you were looking for when you posted the topic. However, there are correct terms to procure the debate you were seeking without having to create your own definitions. This was more akin to challenging someone to a boxing match, then stating that it will be fought with knives instead of gloves. I could say that I define Logic for the sake of this argument as "Tasting of cotton candy" but that doesn't make it a good definition and I feel you are going to meet with miscommunication issues when you go to a debate forum and mess with common debate terminology. Anyway- let the fun continue. According to your 2nd round argument: "Apparently, there is some confusion with my definition of "valid." Basically, it means that firstly, the premises must be proven true through accurate sources..." First, the Bible is considered to be the primary authority on the Christian God. However, it cannot be proven to be an accurate source. There is the major problem of translation, as has been illustrated by the confusion over the definition of the word "Almighty." In English, the meaning of "All" is pretty clear in its finality. It is not the same as "some" or "most." The second you put a limit on something, it is no longer limitless. Whether debate is raised over faulty translation, or failure for the Bible to define its own terms, we are forced to speculate heavily on what the Bible "means" and that includes as a reference to the nature of God. So, I am not sure I am going to be able to find any accurate sources from which to retrieve my arguments, since they are all based on a book that has so many potential inaccuracies (even if the inaccuracies are due to mistranslation). Secondly- We're not talking about something crazy impossible here. According to your argument: "This point is actually stressed numerous times in the Bible, as God is mentioned as unable to break His own word. As another part of God's nature is allowing humans to excersice free will, God's omnipotentness does not contradict humans' free will." The important statement here is that God ALLOWED humans to have free will. It was rule that he made up himself. God created the rule, and yet, by this statement I am also to understand that God cannot break that rule. Breaking rules is not impossible. It is not the same as saying a man is a donkey, or someone created a rock to heavy to lift and then lifted it. If there is any question, watch five year-olds play tag. They create and break their own rules all the time. You're argument is that an ALMIGHTY God cannot do something that any human child does all the time: set his own rules and then break them. This limitless power is sounding more and more limited. So again: Power cannot be both limited and limitless. The Christian God is said to be all powerful (Almighty) according to the Bible The Christian God's power has limits according to the Bible Therefore the Christian God cannot exist as described in the Bible. If God is truly all powerful, then he must have the ability to change his mind about the rules of reality that he set forth. If he does not have this power, then he is not all powerful. If he has the power to GIVE humans free will then he either: A. Has the ability to take free will from them (in which case, it isn't really free, but ours only because of God's arbitrary whim) or B. Doesn't, in which case he is not all-powerful. So again, I say that the Christian God cannot exist as laid forth in the Bible. His powers are either too limited to grant him the title "Almighty" or his promise of free will is as empty and useless as an incorrect definition of valid. ;)