The following arguments against the existence of God are legitimate.

CONTENTION 1 Argument A CON completely misunderstands the conflict between Free Will and Predestination. They are mutually exclusive concepts; one must be true, and the other must be false. As I pointed out, CON confuses Free Will and Free Agency. I cited the dictionary to support my claim and CON has not contested it other than to say that I didn't directly post the definitions here. Character restraints forbade it, I did, however, source my claim. John Calvin was basing his views on the principle of sovereignty found in numerous Bible verses (297 in all!).[1] CON had, in all of his arguments, ample space to critique this position, but has not elected to do so. As per CON's definition of omnipotence, God cannot delegate away His sovereignty; it is part of His nature, just as God cannot lie or sin or create a being more powerful than He is, even if He wanted to (though one could argue it would contradict his nature merely to want to!). Argument B CON completely misunderstands my syllogism; I am not asking him to PROVE the existence of God, I am asking him to DISprove my (fully sourced) contention that Christian ethics are non-consequentialist in nature. I gave the name of the book, the author, the publisher, and the page number; CON's only objections have involved sourcing, however, given my full documentation, this is nothing short of ludicrous. CON claims that he doesn't have to prove anything in this debate, but what his statement comes down to is basically "I don't have to counter any of your points." If CON cannot prove that it is even POSSIBLE for evil to used for good, he clearly loses the argument. As a sidenote, in addition to missing the mark completely, CON's syllogism is a very poor analogy and misunderstands the burden of proof.[2] Regarding the ability for a Holy, sinless being to create evil, I fully sourced my claim. CON has not offered any argument and his objections should be disregarded. I believe I have clearly won this argument and disproved the existence of the Christian God, which is sufficient to win the debate. The vote should go to PRO. CONTENTION 5 I cited www.biblexicon.com for my textual arguments. Character restraints forbade my inclusion of every page for every claim, however, CON was free at any time to verify them. The Bible Lexicon site directed my passage search to the affiliated biblos.com. There is no problem with sourcing. The YLT obviously comes out very messy to one not familiar with Hebrew grammar, however, for clarity in specific NIV passages, it is very useful. This point aside, I used the YLT for clarity on a verse regarding human sacrifice; Dt. 18:10. CON quotes the YLT translation of Num. 23:19, so he is essentially trying to refute an argument that I never made. For Num. 23:19, I cited Biblos' transliterated Hebrew word "vaiyinnachem," meaning "to be sorry, console oneself." It is, as I have stated previously, the same Hebrew word found in Gen. 6:6. The contradiction stands. CON claims that I have only proven that "God couldn't have done certain things." How is it that the Bible is the absolute source for God's attributes but not God's actions? This is certainly a change in CON's approach; he took the time in previous rounds to attempt to refute my contention, it is only in the last round that he makes this argument. If anything, this only highlights the fact that I have clearly won this point as well. CONTENTION 3 CON's argument regarding time is self-contradictory. To create time would be an action; as per his own reasoning, action is impossible unless some medium for it already exists. This creates three possible scenarios: a) time is eternal, in which case CON's objections to this argument, as well as the reverse cosmological argument are void; b) physical time is only a reflection of metaphysical time (I will expand on this in my next contention), or c) nothing exists (solipsism), obviously if nothing exists, that includes God. Clearly CON's premises are flawed and the argument should go to PRO. CONTENTION 4 My link to Discover Magazine was indeed broken…my argument was written hastily in the last hour and a half I had to post it since I had spent the weekend over Christmas with family. If time MIGHT not exist, this shows that CON's objection is not wholly founded. In any case, what the article says is that time certainly does not exist at the plank level and might not exist even for larger objects. If time does not exist at the plank level, yet activity is still possible, this disproves CON's assertions. Some other medium for action existed prior to the singularity, this is true for both naturalistic and theistic models. This I referred to as "metaphysical time," that is, time as a concept, both a medium of action and an unceasing, one directional flow. Obviously, we do not know what the laws governing nature were prior to the singularity; we can only speculate at present. As per the Principle of Uniformity, we must assume that whatever caused the singularity had a cause of its own. God, on the other hand, had no cause and also violates the Law of Parsimony by unnecessarily complicating the model. CONTENTION 6 CON attempted to disprove the validity of Occam's razor with an out of context quote from Wikipedia and an absurd counter example. Occam's razor is highly useful, although as I said, like any logical device, the conclusions one draws from it are only as valid as the premises. In addition to empirical justification, it can also be shown deductively to be valid, as the late philosopher Jerrold Katz explains: "If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G."[3] In a word, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." – Carl Sagan I thank my opponent for his patience (I went right up to the last minute for some of my posts) and an interesting debate (my first on this site). I thank the audience and the voters. I have authoritatively disproven the existence of the Christian God as well as the possibility of a mere "creator God" and strongly urge a PRO vote. [1] http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://psychology.wikia.com...