The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

First, I would like to welcome my opponent to DDO. Apparently, there is some confusion with my definition of "valid." Basically, it means that firstly, the premises must be proven true through accurate sources, and secondly, the conclusions must logically follow. My opponent got the definition down with the exception of the fact that all premises must be shown to be true, to prevent debates such as this one: http://www.Debate.org... Argument #1: The Paradox of Omnipotence The flaw here is that while God has been sourced as omnipotent, the definition given by my opponent is not necessarily the same as the one used in the Bible. There are, of course, many different meanings of omnipotence [1], as well as many different types [2]. As the Bible uses the word "almighty" frequently, it is quite likely that the Bible uses Omnipotence Type 5, more accurately stated as Almightiness, which is often used as a synonym of "omnipotent." As my opponent's argument relies on the unproven idea of the Bible meaning Omnipotence Type 1, it is not a complete argument, and therefore the conclusion (God has unlimited omnipotence) can be false while the premise (God is omnipotent) is true. Argument #2: The Paradox of Omnipotence and Active Tendency This argument, again, relies on the idea of unlimited omnipotence. However, one meaning of omnipotent is "3. 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)." 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. Therefore, the premise (God is omnipotent) could exclude the ability of God to restrict free will, and therefore, the conclusion (God is logically contradictory) could still be false. Argument #3: God Might not Exist My opponent assumes that I must, in this debate, prove the existence of God. However, the debate is about whether or not my opponent can disprove God. If by the end of the debate, the existence of God is still up in the air, then I win. Furthermore, my opponent assumes that if the Bible is a poor source (unsourced, while the definition of "valid" requires sources), then one must either disbelieve God or turn to another source. However, this completely eliminates the idea of the Agnostic [3], one who neither believes nor disbelieves in deities. My opponent's unsourced premise (the Bible is an invalid source) could still be true while the conclusion (God does not exist) is false. I have demonstrated how in all of my opponent's arguments are not logically valid. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... Finally, a suggestion to my opponent: While sourcing any material for arguments, it is suggested to mark where in the argument you used the source with (#), [#], etc., and then list the sources with the corresponding numbers, to easily understand where arguments are sourced.