The argument from free will [en.wikipedia.org] contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will by arguing that the two properties are contradictory.

The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of God, if God is supposed to be a perfect sentient being: As presented by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness [en.wikipedia.org], it states that since existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."

Theological noncognitivism [en.wikipedia.org], as used in the literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is meaningless in some way.

The problem of evil [en.wikipedia.org] (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of evil, which can easily be shown to exist.

The argument from poor design [en.wikipedia.org] contests the existence of an intelligent Creator God by arguing that much of nature is poorly designed.

if (God did exist) then { - he'll break at once this website - he'll stop all the non believers from breathing - he'll help increase the percentage on this argument to 99% } None of the previous arguments are true, so it follows God doesn't exists.

We have tailbones, we have apendixes, we have wisdom teeth, all things that have become useless as we have evoled. God wouldn't have added things that we didn't need to our bodies; we're all from nature, not that people can't be spiritual, but come on, don't tell me what to think.

Little green men exist under my bed, they told me that they created the Universe and everything and I am the only one who can see them and know the truth. Now I dare YOU to prove that what I am saying is the truth (or that it is a lie.) I don't want to burden myself with the proof. -- If you don't believe me, why do you believe others who are saying the same about some god?

The argument from nonbelief [en.wikipedia.org] contests the existence of an omnipotent god who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God [en.wikipedia.org] contests the existence of an intelligent Creator God by demonstrating that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science.

So I will assume it is talking about the regular Judeo-Christian God. Done away with by argument from evil. QED.

How does a God solve any problems? where did that God originate? Any excuse you can use for why a God has always been here, etc and simply be applied to the universe itself. if the universe has been here an infinite amount of time then how could anything have created it? there is no 50/50 chance that theres a God. there is no way of knowing the odds of something like that. i know christians find it to their advantage to use pseudo-science/math to try to make it seem like your beliefs have some sort of basis in reality, but they do not. and as for this "uncaused cause" nonsense, you're spewing about what philosophers thought about based on the very limited understanding of science and physics at the time. if any of you would do any real research you'd see that science has changed, and its not as simple as "uncaused cause" anymore. also theres no consideration for whether or not the universe has been here for an infinite amount of time. religion/gods/creators dont have a 50/50 chance of existing. there are no odds for something like that, based on OBSERVATION i would say religion has a 0% chance of existing.

Bertrand Russell makes the argument much more eloquently than I can.

Why I am Not a Christian

The "no motivation" argument states that if god is omnipotent, then he would not be motivated to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, since God would have anything God wanted in infinite amounts and would have no desires since there is no reason for God to have any. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction and an omnipotent God cannot exist.

Many unexplainable events in the Bible are to be taken in Faith, as are the “higher” purposes behind various atrocities of humanity. If any negative event, even to the extreme of the killing of God’s son or the complete disappearance of God can be attributed to “faith” or “God’s master plan” then this forms a circular argument that prevails without logic or proof, no matter how seemly random or horrible an occurrence. This all encompassing argument defies all forms of scientific analysis that form the discovery mechanism of most advanced technological discoveries. Choosing a provable physical scientific theory, versus a vague unprovable hypothetical God only results in one possible conclusion. God does not exist, or if he does it is pure coincidence that we believe in him as he has had no effect on humanity at any point.