Prof Richard Swinburne similarly characterises God as 'a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good'.

It suffices to establish atheism, then (given these guys' characterisations/definitions of theism), that I show beyond reasonable doubt that there's no being that is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.

If God isgood, then there is, obviously, no problem of evil. Yet almost all monotheists treat the problem of evil as a significant problem. So it's clear most monotheists require that God be good.

They arepositing agod, say. Indeed they would be very muchcharacterising their God in such terms.

Suppose at the end of the debate it's suggested that I have not shown God does not exist because I have not refutedvariety of god hypothesis - I haven't ruled out Zeus, or Odin, or the Manachean gods. Nor have I ruled out an all-powerful but morally indifferent God, or a morally perfect but less than omnipotent God.





pretty much everyone in the room, the existence of these other gods is simply not issue. Those in this room who who say they believe in God and indeed worship God do not believe in the existence of an omnipotent but morally indifferent being. They, like me, are atheists when it comes to a God like that. In response to that, I'll point out: for, the existence of thesegods is simply not issue. Those in this room who who say they believe in God and indeedGod dobelieve in the existence of an omnipotent but morally indifferent being. They, like me, are atheists when it comes to a God like that.





their God. If I can succeed in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that their God - an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good god; a god actually worthy of our worship - does not exist, I'll rightly consider that a win. So let's keep the focus onGod. If I can succeed in establishing beyond reasonable doubt thatGod - an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good god; a god actually worthy of our- does not exist, I'll rightly consider that a win.





2. Beware the dodgy 'cumulative case'





Secondly, I want to make a simple logical point sometimes overlooked in these debates. Often, those arguing for the existence of God offer a number of arguments. For example, they may offer first a cosmological argument for there being a first cause and necessary being, second a teleological argument for there being a designing intelligence, third an argument for this being being a person, fourth an argument for this being being morally perfect, and so on.





still the case for their God might more or less entirely collapse. Let's suppose they do have a sound cosmological argument for a first cause, a necessary being. Let's suppose they do have a good argument for there being a designing intelligence. But now notice that all but one of these arguments could be sound and yetthe case forGod might more or less entirely collapse. Let's suppose theyhave a sound cosmological argument for a first cause, a necessary being. Let's suppose theyhave a good argument for there being a designing intelligence.





Still, it will suffice to refute their case for their God if I can show that they have no good case for supposing that this necessary being, designing intelligence, and so on, is also perfectly good. For if I can show that, then there still remain all sorts of gods on the table of which theirs is just one candidate. They've given us no reason yet to prefer their candidate over any of these various other candidate gods, such as morally indifferent God, say, or an evil God. But then their case fails. For if I can show that, then there still remainof gods on the table of which theirs is just one candidate. They've given us no reason yet to prefer their candidate over any of these various other candidate gods, such as morally indifferent God, say, or an evil God. But then their case fails.

3. 'But still, we are now pretty close to showing God exists'





Finally, if I can establish beyond reasonable doubt that whether or not there's an omnipotent, omniscient being, a designing intelligence, and so on, there's ample evidence to establish this being is not perfectly good - and thus ample evidence this being is not your God - the God you worship - it won't do to say,



