There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

I also would like to say that this argument is new to me yet I enjoy the challenge of it. I will take each point one by one and then draw conclusions regarding them. //1:This is a logical argument. // Well you haven't made the argument yet sooooooooooo. But what ever. //2:Pro must use logical laws to refute this argument. // Sure I guess. //3:In order for the refutation to be meaningful, logical laws must be abstract and absolute. // Why exactly? //4:In order for logical laws to be abstract, they must be the product of thought, i. e. , a mind. // I have one objection to this. The point being that a mind is not the only thing that could produce logical laws. A computer system could as well. Granted we have not reached that point yet but technically a computer could. //5:In order for this mind to produce absolute logical laws, it must be immutable. // How so? An absolute law does not require an immutable mind. The mind itself can grow and change but the law can still be absolute. //6:In order for this mind to be immutable, it must transcend nature (i. e. , supernatural) and be unchanging. // If we ignore my previous statement this is still false. Take a computer system for example. If there is a basic system that can produce logical laws it will not change thus it is immutable but it is not supernatural. This fact alone discredits this point. *** //7:The God of the Holy Bible meets the necessary precondition for an unchanging, supernatural mind. // So does a computer system. //8:In order for Pro to refute this argument, God must exist. // Here is the worst assertion of all. First, even if we ignore a computer (which I will come back to later) this is assuming a god is doing the refuting, not I. But the aforementioned is clearly not the case. I am doing the refuting and if I can refute your claims it does NOT prove god exists. It merely proves I am god/supernatural. Since I have refuted you argument I am god and your god does not exist since, according to the definition you gave, god is "without body" yet since I have a body and I am god, your god is false. .. .OR. .. .. we could ignore this and assert that I am a computer or I had an immutable self running computer system solve this and your argument is refuted without invoking god. .. .OR. .. .we can jump back to assertion 5 and I can say that an immutable mind is not needed for an absolute logical law. Again, the mind may change but the law will not. So here you have 3 options. 1: I am god ergo the god you subscribe to is false. 2: A computer solved this and thus the assertion that this can only be false if god is real is not true and your argument ignores a crucial point and thus it is flawed. 3: Your 5th contention is just false and illogical meaning your first one falls and thus your entire argument is false. Which shall it be? I am god, a computer (which is immutable) solved this or parts of your argument are inherently false? (Hint:all lead to the same demise) ~~Peter ***Now I know one would argue that the system would first have to be programmed but that is irrelevant. We are not talking about the programmer. We are talking about the system itself and the system will not change unless told to do so thus it is immutable.