The God claimed by Christians is a real problem for anyone who thinks logically about his

existence. It must be very hard to make sound arguments to back up the belief in this God, but, finding
sound arguments against the existence of this deity couldn't be much easier. Perhaps this is why most
Theists don't even try to justify their beliefs in terms of reason and evidence: taking on a mission of this
kind is just too daunting of a task for most people, and so it's left to a very few people like William
Lane Craig and Douglas Wilson – both of whom think that slavery is cool, since Jebus told us so.

Similarly, very few non-believers rise out of the lower ranks of weak Atheism and arrive at the position
of strong Atheism in relation to the God of the Christians, which is the stance that not only do you
doubt the existence of the given deity, you go so far as to say that the given deity doesn't exist at all.
The difference between doubting something, and saying that something is impossible, may seem small
to some, but to anyone who has dealt with debate before, it's a sort of coin-toss at the beginning of a
football game – it determines the start of the contest. By taking the strong Atheist position, a person has
to assume the responsibility of proving their claim, since they're not just saying they're unsure, they're
saying they are 100% sure that the god in question doesn't exist. I think most Atheists I've met are of
the weak variety: they doubt the claims, but they wouldn't argue that the Christian God is flat-out
impossible. It's a tough road to hoe since if you make a truth claim like “That God is a load of rubbish.”
you adopt the burden of proof and have to justify your claim of nonexistence, instead of the Theist
having to prove his claims.

So, I plan to put forward some arguments against the existence of the Christian deity. I've found these
arguments to be sound and very convincing, even if you're of a skeptical mind. I hope the readers of
this piece won't find it insulting if I hyperlink the definitions of some of the words used in the
arguments; I assume you're all smart people, but if you're like me, you may enjoy a quick clarification
on some of the terms used. Also, just to make sure we're all playing by the same rules for establishing a
claim to be true or false, we have to necessarily agree that any being found to be contradictory is an
impossible being. Just as a circle cannot be a square, no being cannot possess two traits that are at odds
with each other, at the same time. Examples of this would be: a table made of wood, and not made of
wood. Or, a sunflower seed that is also a sperm whale. Basically, it has to make sense. For more about
the principle of non-contradiction, read here.

First up: The problem with a perfect creator. This argument is formed as:

1. The Christian God (CG) is claimed to be a perfect being.

2. The CG is also claimed to be responsible for creating the universe.
3. But a perfect being would have no need or desire to make anything; since part of being perfect
means lacking desires or needs.
4. Therefore, the CG stands in contradiction, and cannot exist.

This argument is fairly straight forward. If a being needed or wanted something, it wouldn't be perfect.
A perfect being would possess all the things it wanted or needed already, it would also possess
everything it might want or need at any point in time; it would be impossible for it to long for
something out of the past, or wish for something later down the road. A perfect being would feel no
need to create something even for amusement, or out of boredom, since it doesn't need amusement and
never gets bored – both states burden their host with imperfections.
Argument two: Transcendence vs Omnipresent.

1. The CG is claimed to be transcendent and omnipresent.

2. But something cannot be both inside space and time, while also being outside space and time.
3. Therefore, the CG stands in contradiction, and cannot exist.

This one is a little stickier, but isn't a brain buster: to be omnipotent means you can go anywhere you
want, but, being transcendent means you are outside our natural universe. This is the same as someone
telling you that you're both inside your computer monitor, and outside of it. You can't have both – you
have to choose one.

Argument three: Just vs Merciful.

1. The CG is claimed to be both just, and merciful.

2. But to be just means you treat someone exactly as they deserve, while being merciful means
you treat someone better than they deserve.
3. Therefore, the CG is in contradiction, and cannot exist.

This is another squared circle statement. While it would be nice if the CG was merciful, he can't be,
since he is just. Or, is he merciful and lacking a sense of justice? On a side note, the bible would be
pretty boring without all that murder and genocide the CG does throughout it.

Argument four: Immaterial vs Personal.

1. The CG is claimed to be without a physical form, and at the same time able to physically
interact with the material world by performing miracles, and talking to people.
2. But since interacting with the material world requires you to be material, you cannot also be
immaterial.
3. Therefore, the CG is in contradiction, and cannot exist.

A common hangup with this argument is getting a person to realize that to be a personal God (the
variety that helps out humans, or directs natural happenings), the God has to have the means of
influencing the natural world – that means he has to be natural himself, since we know of no being that
can influence our world without being a physical part of it. Also, any time you hear a Theist say “My
God exists.” you should join me in pointing out this is not a mere subjective opinion, that is an
objective truth claim about a material thing, and when you make an existence claim, it follows that you
assume the thing you're claiming exists does so in the natural world. This argument has to have a little
bit of a sting to a theist, since their God is said to be a busy guy when it comes to tinkering with things
in the natural world, and thus having to exist.

Argument five: Consciousness without matter.

1. The CG is claimed to possess consciousness, but lacking matter.

2. But matter is a prerequisite of consciousness.
3. Therefore, the CG is in contradiction, and cannot exist.

Just like the previous argument, being immaterial prohibits you from certain things. In this case
the CG would have to forfeit (among other things): thought, emotion, will, and sensation, since all of
those traits require consciousness. Believers basically lay down on the train tracks when they say their
God is immaterial, that trait basically takes away any chance of being relevant to the material world. It
also makes the deity described unmeasurable and unknowable to humans, and even in principle. If a
God is said to be without form then there is no logical grounds for saying we know anything about it, at
all, even as a concept.

Argument six: All-powerful vs All-knowing

1. The CG is claimed to be able to both do anything, while also knowing everything.

2. But if the CG knows something is going to happen, without a doubt, then he could not change
the happening, since if he did decide to change it, he would introduce doubt to the happening.
3. Therefore, the CG is in contradiction, and cannot exist.

For some reason I have a bit of trouble explaining this one cogently, so I'll have another go at it: If God
decides to commit genocide against the Amalekites (yes, even the babies aren't safe.) tomorrow at
noon, he can't change his mind, since if he did, he would bring doubt and change to something that was
set to happen, and if he can't change the future, he cannot be said to be all-powerful – thus he finds
himself in contradiction. It's the certainty of events that brings knowledge of them, and it's the ability to
influence change that brings power. Carried to their extremes, as they are in the Christian faith, the
contradiction becomes even more clear.

Well, I suppose that's enough for now, and I hope you found these arguments as stimulating as I do.
Arguments for or against the CG are really interesting, and really make a person push their
philosophical limits. It's a shame more people don't routinely debate this topic, or any other topic for
that matter. Our ability to reason is our most precious faculty in my view, I would love to see more
people put down that damned television remote and do some critical thinking. After all, if you can
explain the plot-line of Lost then you certainly have the brain power to articulate your beliefs about
Gods and afterlives – and which one of those two is more important?