The following arguments against the existence of God are legitimate.

My opponent claims that sourcing God as "good and upright" makes Him omnibenevolent. However, that just makes him benevolent (good). My opponent still needs to source omnibenevolence. As for omniscience, my opponent's quotes only include knowledge of the heart, but of nothing else. I would like to remind the readers of the burden of proof in this debate: my opponent must construe an argument in which it is impossible for the Christian God to exist, with no wiggle room allowed. 1. The problem of evil A. My opponent claims that man does not have free will, according to the Bible. However, to analyze my opponent's quote, we need to define "foreknow" and "predestinate. " Foreknow - "to have previous knowledge of : know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation" [3] Predestinate - "destined, fated, or determined beforehand" [4] What the author is saying is that God knows what people will do with their free will, and therefore can manipulate things in the universe to end up with people using their free will in a fated way. People still have choices; the choices are merely predetermined. For example, if I knew that you would pick a red pill as opposed to a blue pill, would it really be any less of a choice? B. My opponent claims that I have the burden to prove this higher purpose of evil, calling it otherwise an argument from ignorance. However, an argument from ignorance is when "a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true" [1]. Nowhere did I say that evil is being used for some higher purpose. I am saying that it could. My opponent, in fact, is the one arguing argumentum ad ignorantium by stating that because I cannot prove evil to be used for a higher purpose, it cannot be true. My opponent claims that in Biblical ethics, the ends cannot justify the means, sourcing "Understanding Ethics. " I would like to know the page number and exact text that is being quoted here, so that we can know that a quote is not taken out of context, and what Bible verses Noel Preston is using to support his claim, as all attributes of the Christian God must ultimately be sourced from the Bible. Finally, my opponent claims that God has control over history. However, his source for this says, "God has given us free will and full freedom. He never interferes in them. He remains so from then to now" [2]. This contradicts what my opponent says of his source. Free will was not part of His Perfect Will, but rather something extra for humanity, to ensure that it was not just a bunch of robots. My opponent claims that God could have come up with some better plan. However, he would have to prove that this better plan exists, or else it's just argumentum ad ignorantium. 3. Reverse Teleological argument My opponent claims that God must have had a cause. However, I have already shown that there must have been a first cause with the Parade Analogy. My opponent claims that an unending chain of causes could occur without time; however, as time is the measure of change, and the medium through which changes and causes must take place, the chain must stop at the beginning of time. There must have been something at the start that was uncaused (for example, God). Although infinities do not exist, time is not infinite. Time is merely a ray, starting at the first cause, and lengthening to this day. Therefore, His eternality is not infinite, as time is not infinite. 4. Reverse Cosmological argument My opponent suddenly mentions the Principle of Uniformity, claiming to have used it. However, all he did was put together an argument with the premise, "What is complex and precise requires deliberate planning and manufacture by an intelligent being. " My opponent has apparently dropped this premise, as he now thinks that the complexity of time, space, and matter are explained by an impossibly unending chain of natural causes (as the Parade Analogy shows; my opponent makes no argument against the Parade Analogy, conceding his unending chain to be impossible). There must have been a first cause, unexplained by any prior causes. For example, God. 5. The Bible shows God to contradict My opponent's claims as to what Hebrew words were used in the Bible are sourced in a general website. I would like a more specific sourcing of the exact web page that gave this information. The NIV translation (remember, this debate centers entirely around the NIV translation) for Num 23:19: "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. " The word "repent" does not even appear. For Gen 6:6: "The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. " Again, no "repent. " My opponent then cites Young's Literal Translation, but this debate centers around the New International Version, so this is irrelevant. The clear intent of the verse is not what my opponent claims (how can he prove that it is what he claims? ), but rather the idea that none should force their own blood into human sacrifice. According to the Bible, human sacrifice is okay if the victim consents. That's all there is to it. My opponent cannot prove otherwise. As for "test," my opponent's source is still vague and unclear. I have already shown the connotations of both verses to be different. One addresses temptation to do evil desire, while the other is merely the testing of whether Abraham was willing to do as God commanded of him or not, with no evil desires involved. These two different contexts and connotations can exist separately with no contradiction. God tests faith, but does not tempt into sin. My opponent again dismisses what I say concerning God's omniscience as argumentum ad ignorantium, but I have already shown that it is only my opponent that can commit this fallacy, given the structure of the debate. My opponent claims that Abraham already knew that he would be able to sacrifice his son for God. However, there are many instances in which people think they would be able to do something, but wouldn't do so in reality. For example, a person might think that he would take on more pain to spare someone else from pain, but when the time comes, he decides that he cannot bear to choose to bear any more pain, like Wilson Smith in 1984 (Book III). Abraham, however, proved to himself that he was willing to sacrifice his son if necessary. 6. Occam's razor My opponent is quite badly misrepresenting Occam's razor. "Occam's razor states that of any number of possibilities that EQUALLY WELL explain a given phenomenon, the simplest is correct. " The simplest is not necessary correct, but rather, preferably assumed. "In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result" [5]. "There are many examples where Occam's razor would have picked the wrong theory given the available data. " Occam's razor is far from definite. It is merely a probability tool. My opponent says that there is evidence of photons, unununium, and a round Earth. However, in 1000 BC, such evidence was unheard of, yet those things still existed. To conclude this point, Occam's razor has never disproved anything, and cannot disprove anything. In conclusion, in all of my opponent's arguments, there are explanations as to why the sourced premises can be accepted, while the conclusion denied, without contradiction. 1. . http://philosophy.lander.edu... 2. . http://www.comprehensivechristian.com... 3. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...