God does not exist.

Contingency ArgumentMy main problems with this argument come at Premise 6 and Premise 7. Why can't the universe be due to chance and why does God have to be maximally great? (Respectively)Moral argument When Con tries to defend the premise that says that Objective moral values and duties exist, he gives the following syllogism:P1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoralP2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarilyP3) Some objective moral knowledge exists;C) Moral truths exist.The first problem I have with this argument is that it assumes that the morals have to be objective, yet people do disagree on what is right and what is wrong. For example, a Muslim may argue that apostasy, drawing a picture of Muhammad and eating pork are all wrong, but a non-Muslim may not think so. A would have moral content if he thought that P would enjoy the gift that he gave him, for example. The first premise states that 'For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then a cannot be amoral' Something may or may not be considered on someone's own subjective morality, but that does not make it fact.Since the first premise states that without God objective moral values cannot exist, then I assume that Con's answer to Euthyphro's dilemma is that X is moral because God says so. Yet if this is true, then God could just as easily change his mind about what is moral or immoral. This means that morality is subjective, as it cannot be objective since God could easily just suddenly change his mind about morality. If he cannot do this, then he is not supplying us with morality.Ontological Argument There's one thing I want to clarify here. If something is possible, then it could exist. If something is not possible, then it cannot exist. A maximally great being is one who is maximal in all positive properties and has no lesser-making properties. The ontological argument implies that being omnipresent is a positive quality to have, yet I have no reason to see why it should be. Until Con proves that omnipresence is a positive property, since the automatic assumption is to assume that it is not a positive property, it is reasonable to assume that it is not a positive quality to have. If Con cannot prove that omnipresence is a positive property, then P3 doesn't make sense and therefore the whole argument falls down. A good source on exposing the modal ontological argument can be found here: [1]Yet X property can be neutral, instead of positive or negative. If X property is negative, then God would have -X. If X property is positive, then God has X property. If X property is neutral, then God has neither -X or X, he simply has 0 of that property either way. While I'm here, I may as well put up my own arguments:God's Attributes (P1) There are three attributes of existents which concern us particularly, these being: A. Primary Attributes - The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified. B. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise. C. Relational Attributes - What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute. (P2) B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existent’s A in order to be considered meaningful. (P3) The term “God” lacks a positively identified A. (P4) Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2) (P5) However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless. (P6) Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless; (From 3, 4, 5) (C) Therefore, the god-concept is invalid. When someone says to you, "God exists", how do you normally respond? For most atheists, the answer is simply "prove it." However, this is a bit premature. Before we can get into whether or not God exists, we must first know what a God is. Indeed, many intellectuals have discussed and debated the subject as to what God is throughout history. The fact remains that from its original form, the ANC has stood as one of the most significant threats to the Christian/Theist worldview. For example, consider the following dialogue[2]: Mr. Jones: “An unie exists.” Mr. White: “Prove it.” Mr. Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof.” If this exchange seems less than satisfactory, much of the blame lies with Mr. White: his demand for proof was premature. Mr. Jones has not specified what an “unie” is; until and unless he does so, “unie” is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. As W. T. Blackstone puts it: “Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faithis beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request forthe meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge.” Conclusion Until my opponent specifies what a God is, the god-concept is invalid and “god” is just an utterly meaningless sound. The following argument is tied in nicely with the last. Theists have attempted to provide us with a list of what God is. According to the 1968 National Catholic Almanac, God is[3]: [A]lmighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true. As you noticed, these answer the secondary attribute, but fail to answer the primary attribute. Moreover, and more important, the above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described? Anything with contradictory attributes cannot exist. God has contradictory attributes Therefore, God cannot exist. Sources [1] http://www.paul-almond.com...[2] Smith, G. “Atheism: The Case Against God”[3] 1968 National Catholic Almanac, edited by Felician A. Foy, O. F. M. (Paterson: St. Anthony’s Guild, 1968), p. 360.