Definition of 'God'--A Contradiction

[Nonexistent_One]

The way I see it, when people try to prove/disprove the existense of 'God,' they go about it all wrong. Each side must know exactly what they are arguing for or against, so a common definition for 'God' must be set. To be a true 'God,' one must have the quality of being 'Omnimax'--that is, to be omniscient, onmipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent.

Omniscient--all-knowing

Omnipotent--all-powerful

Omnibenevolent--all-good

Omnipresent--everywhere (having infinite presence)

This definition in itself is irrational, as it contradicts itself.

To be all-good is to be incapable of doing evil, am I right? If 'God' committed an evil act, then he cannot be all-good, he would be 'mostly-good.' If 'God' is incapable of doing evil, than is he all-powerful? If 'God' cannot commit an evil act, because of his omnibenevolence, then he is limited to what he can/cannot do.

'God' is all-knowing. He knows the past, present, and future. He knows exactly what you will do and when you will do it. Let me ask you this--do we have 'free will'? If it was predetermined (known beforehand) that you will chose A instead of B by 'God,' then is free will possible? 'God' created everything and knew what the outcome would be--he made a world where you would choose A, but you did not know there was no other option. You could only choose A, because that is how 'God' 'created' it, therefore making it the only possible choice. If there is only one possible choice, then it is not 'Free' will. The only way for us to have free will is for 'God' to not know what we will choose, but if he doesn't know, he is not all-knowing. If God is all-knowing, then he knows exactly what he will do/choose, lacking free will himself and being powerless to change it--that, of course, would contradict his all-powerfulness.

Then we come across the argument of evil. 'God' created morality, did he not? For him to be omnibenevolent, he must creat the notion of 'good' to abide by himself to define him as all-good. If he creates 'good', then he must creat an opposite, defining notion, 'evil.' For something to be 'good,' there must be something to compare it to, as in not-good, A.K.A. evil. How can an all-good God create evil? Even if it was to define 'good,' there is still the fact that he created evil. Some theists argue that there is an 'unknown purpose' behind it. Even then, something evil coming from something all-good doesn't make sense any way you look at it. Besides, if there is an 'unknown purpose,' that only justifies evil, making it not 'evil' at all. It must be impossible for evil to exist, since it is always justified with an unknown purpose to keep our 'omnibenevolent God' all-good.

The problem behind the theist's argument is that it is based on assumptions. Theists first assume that God exists, then they try to reason their way to him, assuming that everything necessary for 'God' to exist is true. The only way out of this whole argument is to assume it isn't true, assume the definitions are not contradictory, or assume that words do not mean what the definition states.

That, my friends, if why I am an atheist. I have given my proof for the nonexistence of 'God,' even though the burden of proof is actually up to the theist to provide. The positive side of the argument must always hold the burden of proof, since there must be a solid definition to work with, and by giving this you are already claiming the positive statement. I had to give the definition myself because there is no other side present in the argument (as of yet). If my definition is wrong in any way, please, feel free to tell me why. If I have written anything wrong here, again, let's hear it. I will analyze your argument and either agree or disagree, explaining why I did so.

Please, no flaming in this discussion. I intend this topic to be a healthy debate, not a game of 'Diss the Other Person If Their Beliefs Are Different.' If you like this game, you do not deserve to participate in the discussion. If you have something to say, back it up with evidence, or at least logic.

~NEO