The God of Abraham probably does not exist

Well, I must admit, I'm relatively disheartned because Ajab accepted, I was kind of just looking for something to entertain myself with, while watching debates, but now this is an intense academic encounter. I also have a feeling were going to get into a lot of formal logic:(Now I am holding a negative position, so the bulk of my participation in this debate will be refutation, however I shall offer a few arguments.The Problem Of Evil: God exists.God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.An omnibenevolent god would wish to preventall evils.An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.Evil exists (logical contradiction).Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist.The problem of evil is a very old argument and theologians have had thousands of years to address it. So what do they say? The response is usually free will. But if there's a god, there is no free will for anybody.Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):1)An omniscient god knows the future.2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. An omniscient god knows your actions.4) You don't have free will.So if there is a god, there is no rational way to combat the problem of evil.Implausability Of An External Observer:1) God is omniscient2) God would observe all quantum superpositions3) Observation collapses quantum superpositions4) God would collapse all quantum positions superpositions5) All quantum superpositions are not collapsed6) God does not existParadox Of God and Free Will(I am presuming Ajab thinks god has free will):1) God knows the future2) God knows what actions he will perform3) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)4) God's actions are predetermined5) God has no free will.Preemptive Refutations:On The KCA:This is a terribly presumptuous argument.A) Everything that begins to exist has a causeB) The universe began to existC) The universe has a causeD) That cause is godIt presumes1. Everything non-eternal has a cause2. The universe has a cause3. The universe has a supernatural causeAssumption1 is false. In quantum physics particles come in and out of existence with no cause. Further more something comes from nothing, this is demonstrated by experiments regarding the Casmir effect.Assumption 2 might be true. I will elaborate on axiom two in my discussion of plausible cosmological models.Assumption 3 is so absurd that it ISN'T EVEN FALSE. One could never know if the universe has the transcendent cause; it isn't even testable.This violates Occam's razor.If it is true everything has a cause and the universe has a cause, then why can' the universe be the cause of its self.Saying the universe has a transcendent cause raises unneeded questions that CAN'T EVER BE ANSWERED.Assumption 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.(I didn't discuss premise B, because it's probably true, but it is not necessarily true. There are eternal models.)On Design:Now the watch maker argument assumes design is an apparent attribute one would assume.If there's a watch, someone who knows what a watch is would infer design, but one with no concept of a watch, would most likely conclude that the watch is naturally there.Also how do you come to the conclusion the universe is designed? We have not experienced other universes to compare it to.With the argument from design you encounter an infinite regression.If anything with intelligence comes from prior intelligence, then god must have been designed. Is god not intelligent?It is absurd to argue everything intelligent comes from prior intelligence but the most intelligent being conceivable doesn't.God-less Cosmology Models: Self Contained Models Of The Universe:-The Oscillating UniverseThis is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed. -Hartle HawkingI really like this one because the universe has a begining but no cause. QET:-Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension."The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are self contained models.Christianity/ Theism Is A Poor Cosmological Model:Theistic Cosmology basically states god created the universe. This is not a good cosmological because it is excessive and it not testable. It also makes no predictions and this is because there is an infinite by Start Savin" href="../../Is-Christianity-illogical/1/">DEGREE of flexibilty. Any theist could just say "god made the universe that way".Well I think that's enough to get the ball rolling. Lol, I can't wait to read Ajab's response, in the form of a 500 page book discussing the history of theology, ethics and modal logic and contemporary perspectives.http://wwwphy.princeton.edu...http://www.universetoday.com...http://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.http...-http://web.uvic.ca...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...