The existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible.

I thank the opposition for his response, and for my second argument I will now explain why my criticisms of the Christian God still hold, and why these more modern arguments are flawed. Initially I would like to emphasise that it is not just disobedience towards God that I refer to as evil in this argument. For example, an earthquake is entirely unrelated to human action or disobedience, meaning that such was supposedly directly designed by God, thus once more showing a lack of care for the destruction this earthquake causes, or a lack of ability to prevent it. Either way the Christian God does not stand. The opposition states that "God knows what we would freely do in any set of circumstances," and yet if this were the case, God would know what a potential murderer would do in a situation that tempted such an action, and this was known from the moment of the murderer"s creation, meaning that this murderer had no other choice, as this was his predestined life. This not only means that free will does not exist with God"s omniscience, but that sin occurred as a result of God"s creation, once more causing the paradox of the inconsistent triad. Regarding the cosmological argument I will now address my opponent's rebuttals. Firstly that it is important to note, that external to the universe, we cannot be certain that the laws of logic apply, and likely they do not. As such, stating that nothing coming from nothing is "logically impossible" is not a valid argument. Additionally regarding the Big Bang, this does not provide a valid explanation of the cause of the universe, because it still requires the provision of a cause of the bang, and the matter involved. In order to defend the idea of God, it must be directly proved that the cause is this specific God. In the quantifier shift fallacy, "the same rules DON"T (sic) apply," because as I have stated previously, anything creating the universe would be external to such, and thus we cannot be assured that the universal laws of logic and causation still apply. Once more, William Lane Craig"s argument is guilty of this fallacy, as I would amend his first proposition to "everything that we can observe that begins to exist has a cause," since we cannot assume rules for entities we have not observed, potentially outside the universe. As such, since the first proposition refers to logic and observation, where the second is external to the universe, this argument is invalid. The reason horses are separate than universes, is because the universe is the state wherein the specific rules of logic were know reside, whereas horses do not hold a specific, and separate logical rule set, and as such this example does not apply. I would assert that as a result of this external nature of a creator, it is impossible to logically defend the existence of a God, not only through causation, but in general, thus leaving faith as the only possible argument. In terms of the teleological argument, the opposition states that "merely because life evolved does not at all imply that God was not behind it." However I think he misunderstands that I do not use evolution to rule out a God, but to rule out the need for a God, and thus the function of the teleological argument. Evolution would function perfectly well without his influence. It is postulated that DNA would have first evolved simple self-replicating peptide, containing no more than 32 amino acids, and thus a very primitive form of natural selection could take place, and would not be too delicate for Darwinian Evolution. The opposition's next point regarding evolution rather puzzles me, as there has been life on this planet for around 3.8 billion years (BBC Nature) which is certainly enough for the albeit slow course of natural evolution. The opposition should note that I did not compare intelligent life to a cabbage, but the universe as a whole, which I'm sure we can unanimously find chaotic. Once again, I must point out that a significant portion of evil and suffering on earth is completely separate to "the failure of men," such as natural disasters, (which before my opponent mentions environmental pollution, occurred long before industrialisation.) This therefore must be related to God, and thus his potential failed creation, or lack of existence. The universal fine-tuning the opposition mentions, is rendered invalid as a result of the multi-verse theory, where with infinite attempts, the conditions for life in the universe would certainly occur. As to the ontological argument presented, despite its deductive style I would argue its invalidity. 1)It is possible that a machine preventing any maximally great being from existing exists. 2)If it is possible that such a machine exists, then a maximally great being cannot exist. 3)Therefore a maximally great being does not exist. Thus the issue with this argument style is presented, in that I can postulate anything in a deductive sense regardless of reason. Furthermore, my main rebuttal to this argument would be that once more, anything external to the universe, anything maximally great, exists external to the laws of logic, and thus logical argument cannot be applied. Regarding faith, I would support my example by stating that we cannot definitively prove that a collision of rocks in space did not by freak anomaly, form an entity which we know to be a teapot, or that some exotic alien race created and launched such an entity. As such this still relies upon faith. I accept that evidences can be given for God, but my argument on faith was purely to state that if the logical arguments regarding God are proved invalid, as I have shown, then he cannot exist. I can't reply to arguments only stated through links, apologies for the word count, but I am under the same restrictions as you. Overall then, as a result of these arguments, I must once more state that the existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible. Thank you for your time. -Invictus