Does God Exist? The proposition is that NO Christian God exists.

Firstly, I do not wish to prove that there is definitely no God, just that it is highly irrational to believe in one. I'll start with the definitions: Christian God: A supreme, metaphysical being who created the world and still exists now - a theistic God. A triune, the trinity being God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. His properties include omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience. Exists: Is an actuality; exists in reality, all be it a supernatural reality. So, anyone imagining this God does not make it exist in actuality, just in their minds. Clearly the onus is on the person arguing the affirmative - God's existence - to present the evidence. However, I will present two arguments against God's existence, then rebut several typical arguments for the existence of God. Argument against God: Atheism has the best explanation for God's hidden nature. The evidence for God is slim, the evidence for Christianity is slimmer still. Even if you claim, as I'm sure you do, that there is strong evidence for God then my question is this: Why is it not stronger? The fact that the majority of the world is not a Christian is evidence against Christianity. God could have made it more evident that he exists (He is omnipotent) and that Christianity is also correct. For example, he could have included some fantastic scientific discovery - evolution, cure for plague, cure for cancer etc. What about if Jesus, instead of only sticking around for 40 days after resurrecting had stuck around for longer, or still hear now. If He had made the evidence for His existence as strong as the evidence for, say, gravity, then there would be little doubt as to His existence. This probably strikes you as a stupid argument, if everybody knew God existed then there would be no room for faith. Yet, faith used in this context - believing in something without knowing it to be true and against reason - is, by definition unreasonable, so to use it is a reason is wrong. So, God's hidden nature is compatible with atheism and not theism. To summarise: Premise 1: God would not want people to suffer. Premise 2: Atheists (or anyone who does not share your beliefs about God ie people of a different religion) will suffer through hell, or lack of reaching some higher state of happiness. Premise 3: God could have made everybody believe in Him by presenting proof of His own existence, on a par with the evidence for, say, gravity. Premise 4: Not everybody does believe in a God Premise 5: So, God chose to make people suffer, conflicting with His omnibenevolence My second argument against God's existence is this: Atheism has the best explanation for the existence of mass evidence for evolution. For this argument I will make the assumption that you believe in evolution as only 1/1000 people in relevant fields reject evolution for creationism. Many Christians think that God knew that over time it was certain that a developed consciousness would evolve. But if you agree with that, or any close relative of it, then I ask the question: Why did a omnipotent and omnibenevolent God use such a selfish, blind, inaccurate and bumbling process to achieve this? Leading to unfairness on a mass scale (for example the world's resources are unevenly spread out) and far more importantly leading to an inherently selfish race - the human one. God could have set us off so that instead of evolving towards our own personal survival as we do, we evolve towards the survival of the entire race, or the world at large. In fact, why don't we evolve towards a greater moral good - survival of the morally superior. What's more evolution has left us suffering gratuitous pain - in latter stages of breast cancer you feel immense amounts of pain, free will has not given you this cancer. It is as a direct result of evolution that we feel the pain (it is a warning), so why do we feel it, as it helps no-one. I find it incomprehensible that a perfect God would have used evolution to create us instead of design. All the suffering that has gone on (under 1% of all species that have ever lived are still alive today according to reliable fossil evidence) and still goes on (humans want to survive so bad they will kill others to do just that) contradicts God's perfection if he is exist. Thus, evolution provides evidence for atheism over theism. Now onto the second stage of my opening statement. I will rebut the cosmological, or first cause argument. The argument is this: Everything has a cause, what is the cause of the universe, it must be God. First of all, this is a classic 'God of the Gaps' argument - we don't know what caused the universe, or even if it has a cause. After all, the tautology of causation could not apply to the universe as a whole, it could be infinite. Secondly, the classic response to the argument is 'What caused God', a theist replies by either saying, 'This is an unanswerable question', in which case why not just cut out the unnecessary link, and use the philosophical tool 'Occamm's Razor' to get rid of the unnecessary assumptions. Or, they will respond, 'God does not require a cause; He is infinite', again, why not just leave it as the universe does not require a cause, one must not add any unnecessary complications and assumptions to a problem. Another popular argument for God's existence is the anthropic argument. It goes, the whole universe seems benign, we, on earth, are incredibly lucky to be here, the improbability of there being a planet with the correct conditions to foster life, especially life with consciousness', God must, therefore, have created it. However, the logic is once again spurious, it commits the 'lottery fallacy', (putting the cosmological argument aside), the universe had to turn out one way or another, so the mere fact that it happened to turn out this way, producing such extraordinary life, is no more surprising than winning a massive lottery - someone had to. Let alone evidence for a God, how much more improbable must God be to create this universe than the improbability of the universe creating life. Also, as the great philosopher David Hume showed in his wonderful work 'Enquiry into public understanding', we must always believe the extraordinary over the miraculous. If you don't accept evolution, then instead of getting onto a pointless argument over that, let's stick to the topic and you can disregard that argument. However, presuming you do accept it then please respond to both arguments. Thanks.