God exists.

Just to be clear, I am arguing against the above topic, not for it. The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate why God exists. Let's start with the most common definition of God: (n) God, Supreme Being (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)[1] I will demonstrate that such a being almost certainly does not exist. Let's start with the problem of evil. The problem of evil is most famously summed up by Epicurus as follows: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?[2][3] Taken to its logical conclusion, an all-powerful, all-loving God cannot exist. Nevertheless, apologists do have some arguments to attempt to refute the above. The most common is the free will defense.[3] The free will defense entails that evil acts are our responsibility, not God's. We must have free will in order to love. I have several objections to this: 1.I agree that we need free will in order to love. However, God is perfect.[1] He doesn't require love. A perfect being by definition requires nothing. In fact, you could even argue that God needn't have created us at all. 2.This does not take into account things like natural disasters. Tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, sickness, etc. These things are totally beyond human control and yet they occur. Why? God could have created the laws of physics differently to ensure that these things don't occur. Yet they do. Why? 3.There is also the problem of gratuitous suffering. Gratuitous by definition means "more than necessary." William L. Rowe famously gives an example. "In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering."[3] What purpose is there for this? 4.God could have designed the universe in such a way as to make evil acts like murder, rape, theft, etc. impossible without removing free will. For example, when someone tries to stab you with a knife, God could have designed the laws of physics to make the knife bounce off human flesh, or he could have made sure that their were no materials on the earth to make weapons, or he could make the knife vanish, etc. There is literally an infinite amount of possibilities. And none of these would remove free will. All God had to do was design the laws of physics differently. Next, I will argue from the problem of divine hiddenness. This is one of the best demonstrations of this argument that I have seen: (Note: D=Definition, P=Premise, C=Conclusion) D1: God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent D2: Revelation is Gods disclosure of Himself to His Creation D3: Evidence is propositional knowledge D4: Revelation is experiential knowledge D5: Resistant nonbelief is a disposition to incredulity D6: Nonresistant nonbelief is a disposition to credulity, while being unconvinced P1: God desires that mankind achieve a filial knowledge of Him P2: God can be known propositionally and/or experientially P3: Propositional knowledge does not entail, but may result in, filial knowledge P4: Experiential knowledge does not entail, but may result in, filial knowledge P5: If it is the case that God is omniscient then He is aware of states of affairs that would bring about filial knowledge of Him P6: If it is the case that God is omnipotent then He is capable of actualizing states of affairs that would bring about filial knowledge of Him P7: If it is the case that God has made His existence propositionally known in the past then such a state of affairs is logically possible P8: If it is the case that God has made His existence experientially known in the past then such a state of affairs is logically possible P9: God has actualized states of affairs that have led certain individuals to filial knowledge of Him P10: God has not actualized states of affairs that would lead certain individuals to a filial knowledge of Him P11: The degree to which Gods existence is known propositionally is at His discretion P12: The degree to which Gods existence is known experientially is at His discretion P13: There is a necessary state of affairs for individuals that would bring about their filial knowledge of God P14: If it is the case that it is not logically possible for God to actualize a necessary state of affairs to bring about filial knowledge Him, then such a state of affairs is logically impossible P15: States of affairs which are logically impossible do not entail culpability C1: If nonbelief occurs it is either the case that God has not actualized states of affairs that would bring about filial knowledge, or it is the case that such a state of affairs is not logically possible (D1, D2, D3, D4, D6, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13 and P14) C2: Nonresistant nonbelief is inculpable (from D6, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P11, P12 & P13) C3: Resistant nonbelief is inculpable (from D5, P14 & P15) P16: Inculpable nonbelief is incompatible with a God as defined in D1 C4: If it is the case that nonbelief occurs, God does not exist[4] I do have other arguments but I will save them for the next round to give my opponent a chance to make his/her case. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...= [2] http://leados.blogs.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.youtube.com...