God does not exist as anything but myth

Rebuttals: In point #3, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Premise: God surpasses nature in that He has supernatural attributes Premise: Supernatural attributes allows God to enter into nature. It is SUPER after all. Conclusion: God can transcend and partake of nature Transcendence does not make entering that which it transcends and impossibility and the ability to transcend something is not a requirement for existence or enough reason to deny existence. #1 implies that justice is a man-made concept. There is a philosophical argument that man cannot perceive of something greater than himself because he is bound by nature. Therefore to perceive God, who is supernatural, he must have had help. In the same way justice, when observed in the "natural" realm where people are not always held accountable for their bad deeds, will not be a concept of universal accountability based on our natural observance. If people want to argue that justice was a human invention then said concept contradicts the statement. The idea of justice, that includes a universal accountability for all, extends beyond the natural to be true. By implication it cannot be a human invention. Point #7 implies (to an atheist) that people have already discovered by themselves under-currents in Biblical times. No person can go to the deep of the seas without some sort of support, even today. Again, the technology did not exist during the time of Job therefore the discovery of it by a human at that time was impossible. If it was discovered by humans back then what was the point of verifying it in the 1970"s? It should have been common knowledge! Point #4: not necessarily -- we can extrapolate by imagination. A flying spaghetti monster is made concepts from reality which we combine in a fantastic way. The difference is between the validity of a concept purely existing because it has an identity and the validity of the claims presented within the concept. I have stated previously that "A contradictory concept may be proven to be valid or invalid but that does not make the contradictory concept itself invalid." The flying spaghetti monster concept exists because you are able to articulate it. But we can prove whether it is valid or invalid. Proving what is valid or invalid about the concept depends on specifics. I have mentioned before that often time the references here are too generalized. For instance: Is the spaghetti monster considered a concept worthy of starting a church? The answer is yes. Can it be validated? Yes it can, check out the internet for the church of the spaghetti monster. Since the spaghetti monster has a church, is it a valid reason to assume his/her/its existence? No it is not valid, the spaghetti monster was not observed by anyone at any time up until now. Secondly, no one has observed spaghetti flying by itself as implied. Point #5: we see "everlasting" indirectly; we also proved the "atomic theory" indirectly -- no one ever saw an atom. People observe the effects and so indirectly prove the theory. In the same way God therefore does not need to be seen to be proven. You regard things you cannot see or do not have direct evidence for as natural but yet you claim to be an atheist? The undeniable point is that you need supernatural ability to be able to verify everlasting. Point #6: a natural alien being from another planet could be such a God. A natural being from another planet who can fly, has strength beyond mans capabilities, and is immune to our weapons will be a god to us if he or she wishes to demand worship from us. Hypothetically, to say that such a being is natural presents a problem to what you are saying. First, the powers classify this being as supernatural rather than natural because it is outside of our frame of natural reference. Secondly, should you claim that it is natural although the being possesses the powers and therefore has a right to exist then you should also allow the same to be true for the God of the Bible. In short, the possibility that a god can exist refutes your atheism. Atheism says NO God exist. Someone who opposes an atheist does not need to prove that God exists. In the very least they only need to prove the possibility. If there is a possibility then a definite NO cannot be declared. In point #2, observe that the ability to force a will on others is already supernatural, therefore it can't exist. It is impossible to force an irresolute man. A man may refuse, or outright kill himself -- yet, he would not obey if he is sufficiently determined. This is because a man has free will. You miss the bigger picture here. For example: Soccer has specific rules that are imposed upon the players. Within these rules there are leeway"s, penalties, prescribed conduct etc. etc. In the end the overall rules are enforced because the game can only have a winner or loser etc. based on the rules that governs the game. The rules are determined by a FIFA alone. There are no other organizations that can impose their laws on the world cup or over rule FIFA"s decisions. In the same way man"s free will and all the things happening are allowed within the plan God set up. God states in the Bible where humanity will end up and that the earth and universe will be replaced by new ones. The free will of man cannot stop this. There is no other being powerful enough to stop God from doing that. In that respect God is almighty to bring about His determined will.