I worte this hoping I could get some tips / feedback.  Any arguments as well.

The Concept of God

 The Christian, before saying that his god exists, must intelligently describe what his god is.  The Christian must give some meaning to the word god or it truly becomes a word with out any content at all.  Before we start talking about the Christian concept of God, lets just clean a few things up first.  Much of the confusion with the word "god" has to do with those people that label things like love, freedom, power, and hope as being god.  I think that this is used as just another way to belittle the atheist by saying things like, "Come on man, don't you believe in hope???"  And then under this ridiculous redefinition of god (god is love), then of course "god" exists and not to many people will argue about that.  To quote George H. Smith, I could say that god exists but that my god is the continent of North America.  Then of course my "god" would exist but this would be highly irrational.  Again quoting Smith, this is rather like transforming atheism into "the serious concerns with ones own life" thereby converting anyone who takes life seriously to atheism.  This is basically pantheism- the doctrine that god is contained within the entire universe- and it reduces god to a triviality.  Why even label love as being god?  What is the point?  Also say for instance we find highly advanced aliens on another planet.  Should we label them as gods?  No.  They are subject to natural law just as we are.  It would be much like a middle aged peasant visiting today's world.  Should we be called gods?  No.  This is a point that Dawkins and Smith have hammered out extinsively but it is very important because it shows why a god must be supernatural.  So God must be a different KIND of existence, not just existence to a higher degree.
 
 I will now talk about natural law for a bit.  Natural law has to do with limitations.  I cannot do anything at anytime.  I will grow into my future self but I will not turn into a pumpkin.  A seed will turn into a plant but it will not turn into a dog.  All beings under natural law are of a limited nature, they have limitations and they therefore are naturally knowable.  From these limitations, we derive attributes and charateristics to label entities with.  We can predict what an acorn will do under certain conditions because of its nature.  So we now know that limitations provide us with attributes and to be subject to natural law is to have a limited nature therefore having characteristics.  We know that god must be supernatural so he must exist with an unlimited nature.  One cannot divorce limitations from attributes so we must conceive of a being that is nothing at all in particular.  To say that god is good or mercifull is to limit god's nature , implying therefore, that god is naturally knowable.  But to talk intelligibly about god, the Christian must give some content to what it is he beleives.  Maybe such a being exists but to claim to have knowledge (and certain knowledge for must Christians) is irrational because the human mind cannot perceive of a being that is nothing because this is in contradiction to existence itself.  If god exists he must be COMPLETELY UNKNOWABLE and therefore, god cannot be known to exist.

 The Christian may try to describe god using negative theology (what god is not) by saying things like: "god is not finite, god is not composed of matter ect...."  This also is  (in a sense) contradictiry to existence in that non- existence isn't finite and non- existence isn't composed of matter either.  So for god to be known the Christian must give positive attributes and make positive assertions for his god to be known.  But positive assertions require proof and justification which the Christian could not possible have, given that god cannot be known.  But there are supposedly attributes which do not limit god's nature called unlimited attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. This route is problomatic as well.  Unlimited attribute is somewhat of a contradiction.  One cannot divorce limitations from attributes.  To say something about an entity is to limit its nature and we already noted that any being with an unlimited nature (the goal of the unlimited attribute), may as well have no nature at all.  Also if god is omnipotent he should be able to make a square circle.  Does he truly have power without limits?  Omniscience is knowing everything that has happened, will happen and is happening now with infalliable certainty.  If at point A:

A-----------------------------------------------B-------C-----------D--------E----

     TIME

God knows with INFALLIABLE CERTAINTY what will happen at points B,C,D, and E on this timeline.  But if he is omnipotent, he could always change his mind over events that will occur at B,C,D,E but then he will not longer be omniscient.  Also, onmiscience is irreconcilable with free will.  If god knows everything that will happen for certain, it seems he just creates some men to go to heaven and others to randomly burn in hell.  Suddenly this Christian idea of salvation is a fluke.  If god knows what we will do in the future, we have no control over it so then how can we be blamed for sins?  It is not in our control if god exists.  Once again, all the destruction and suffering in this world lies on the shoulders of god which brings me to benevolence.  God is said to be kindest, most benevolent being imaginable.  But to be moral one must choose between good and evil.  If one only chose good and had no idea of what evil was, they would simply be amoral so god must know that evil exists and suposedly chooses the good.  But does god choose good?  Are the tsumanis, earthquakes, and tornadoes good?  Was the Holocaust good?  NO!  And when people say "Oh, it's just part of God's plan" they are just trying to reconcile misery with benevolence.  Is it good that they think this??  NO!  In essence what they are doing is saying that terrible events are actually good.  A man rapes and kills a little girl but this is OK because it is part of god's plan.  This is bad for society.  Couple this with the beleif that all of God's people will go to heaven and the fact that Jesus will end the world soon and you suddenly have no reason to do anything to aleve suffering in the world.  I'm getting just a bit off topic.  So basically, if god doesn't know evil exists he is not omniscient.  If god knows evil exists but can do nothing about it he is not omnipotent.  If god knows evil exists and doesn't care to do anything about it he is not omnibenevolent. 

 In summary, most Christians share the beleif in an unknowable god to some degree.  But they will only admit this when they are confronted with criticism.  In other words, they will retreat into agnosticism- the beleif that knowledge of god is not possible- yet they still beleive that their god exists.  This is called religios agnosticism and it has the obvious flaw that one shouldn't beleive something that one can have no knowledge of because how can you possibly know the being to exist if you have no knowledge of it.  I think I have proven the beleif in god to be irrational so atheism simply wins by default.