The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

My opponent illustrates both of my previous points perfectly: Because the Bible did not define its own terms, we are speculating about the definition of the term "almighty. " This is the adjective in the Bible that theologians argue grants God "Omnipotence. " But Omnipotence, as we are told to understand it means "all powerful. " Thus, we are to understand that might is synonymous with power for the purposes of understanding God. It is very convenient that my opponent and his sources get to re-define these words to avoid the problems that philosophers have brought up for the concepts that these words embody. The Bible makes no such clarifications. That is why I am calling it an inaccurate source. First of all, as stated in the previous arguments, yes, it is the Christian Holy Text. However, it was not written in English and there is always information lost with a translation especially when the words being translated are from languages that are either dead or almost unrecognizable today. Therefore, since we cannot have a truly accurate translation of Biblical texts, we cannot have a perfect representation of the nature of God. We are forced to speculate. Because of this, I hold that the English Bible is a questionable source on the Christian God. Secondly, my opponent has said, "It (the supposedly intended definition of almighty) does not assume limitless power, but simply more power than anything else. Additionally, one meaning of omnipotence specifically restricts a deity's capabilities by the rules that it sets for itself. " This is a contradiction. I have clearly illustrated that human beings are perfectly capable of setting their own rules and then breaking them. Are we then to understand that we have that power, but our creator does not? If this is the case, then God does not have "more power than anything else. " My opponent has also stated, "A promise of free will is still free if given away freely. Just because my opponent claims that God may have the power to take back free will, does not mean that it isn't currently free will. " But he has held through his entire argument that this is not the case, that God does not have the ABILITY to break that promise. However, it is a mistake to think that "currently" having free will is really free will at all. If God does have the power to retract free will at any time, then the promise of free will is empty. That is like saying the government promises you a right to a trial by jury, but only for now and it can take away that right at any time, for any reason, just because it feels like it. As you can see, such a freedom is not really free at all. It's more of a permission. Without the choice, without free will, tenants of Christianity fall flat along with their description of God because their idea of choice is illusionary at best and nonexistent at worst. Vote pro, making up definitions, be they the definition of "valid" or the definition of "omnipotent" and "almighty," cannot make up for the problems at the heart of this dilemma. In summary- the words in question are translated and thus, un-realiable. Since the Bible did not define it's own terms, we are forced to speculate heavily on the nature of God. However, once we begin this speculation it is clear that God is either not as powerful as Chrisitans would have us believe, or his promise of free will is an illusion. Either way, he cannot exist as described by Christianity.