Logic Analysis: These arguments disprove the existence of God.

I accept the definitions and such and such. This debate should be fun. I would wish Chrysippus good luck, but I don't believe in luck... or wishes for that matter. So instead, I will bid Chrysippus good tidings. ============================================================================ Arguments ============================================================================ Contention 1: Omnipotence paradox. :::::Premise 1::::: ***God must be omnipotent to exist*** omnipotence [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] - the state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power "Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" 1. Either God can or can not create the rock. 2. If God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, then God is not omnipotent. 3. If God can not create a rock in the first place, then God is not omnipotent. 4. God is not omnipotent. 5. God does not exist. :::::Premise 2::::: ***God must be omnipotent AND omniscient to exist*** omniscience [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] - the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge 1. By definition, omniscience demands the knowledge of everything - including the past, present, and future. 2. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, God is not able to omnipotently change the future because the future is limited to what God knows will happen. --->God is not omnipotent. 3. If a God can omnipotently change the future, then God could have not known about the future in the first place. --->God is not omniscient. 4. God does not exist. Contention 2: Problem of evil. ***God must be omnibenevolent to exist*** omnibenevolence - the state of being omnibenevolent; having unlimited goodness, being morally perfect evil [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] - morally objectionable behavior - that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune - the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice - morally bad or wrong - having the nature of vice - having or exerting a malignant influence 1. If an omnibenevolent God exists, then evil does not exist. 2. Evil exists. --->Evil exists in the form of human actions, like when humans torture and murder other humans. --->Evil exists in the form of natural disasters, like when tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes decimate everything in their path, including human life. 3. God is not omnibenevolent. 4. God does not exist. Contention 3: Who created God? 1. Everything needs a cause. [causal law] 2. God is a part of everything. 3. God needs a cause. 4. If God was caused, then God's creator needs a cause. 5. This sets up an infinite regress, which is not logically valid. 6. God does not exist. ============================================================================ Conclusion ============================================================================ If any one of my arguments, contentions, or premises stand at the end of this debate, then I would win. If I have shown God's existence to be logically impossible in at least one way, then I win. Sorry for pretty much saying the same thing twice, but I just want to make this as clear as possible. This debate should be interesting the rest of the way out. I look forward to Chrysippus's reply.