My arguments against God

In saying this, I do believe that there are a multitude of entities out there that have sub-corporeal forms, and I don’t understand much about this either.

However, my two main arguments against God (I’ve tried more complex ones, but they don’t seem to inspire the popular imagination) are these:

I was once describing to someone how it’s impossible for a being to be omniscient and sentient and they said to me, “Well they are omnipotent too, so an omnipotent being can easily overcome any contradiction and make it so!” And about a day later it hit me! I have heard this argument hundreds of times, and I’ve also heard about the problem of evil that we can’t have happiness without suffering, hundreds of times… and I realized. "The argument that God can overcome all contradictions without contradiction totally demolishes ANY argument that someone can make that God is good!

Because: God could have made all of us born happy, and for every second we live, God could increase our happiness infinitely, or exponentially, forever without any contradiction that someone could possibly conjure, and can easily make it the case that we don’t need suffering to discern happiness from without losing any of the qualities that we deem necessary for our unique personhood!

The second argument is this: God could have easily come to this earth and made it so that every time a person goes to commit an act of violence against another person, they are teleported to a prison right before the act occurs, and they stay there until they can live with others without being that way! This has never happened!

I believe this is the argument the Buddhists say that the Buddha used against the idea of God… Buddha immediately went to the argument of evil, so it’s not original, but it has a modern flare that makes it easier to comprehend.

Those are the arguments that are easy to comprehend!

I wouldn’t bother arguing with people that say God can do things that contradict logic. There aren’t very many of them, and they don’t tend to be philosophically inclined. You’ll interact with a better grade of theist if you take on concepts of God that are logic-bound.
To your second argument- why would God create people with the possibility/capacity to commit violence, only to interfere and stop them every time they actually go to do it?

Why would God create people who try to interfere and stop people every time they try to do it?

Well, so the theory goes, God doesn’t create ‘people that X’.

 God creates people, and one of the inherent qualities of people is that they can do whatever they want.  So God isn't creating a murderer, he's creating a free person, and the person uses that freedom to murder.

This argument is simple to me anyways:

When dealing with the concept of infinity there is no such thing as ‘complete’ or ‘all’, infinity transcends these concepts. When someone says a being is all-knowing, they are saying that this being can count all the digits of pi, or they can count all the counting numbers… but they can’t, because by definition, they NEVER END (thus the guy came at me with the omnipotence argument). There is no such thing as counting all of something that never ends. But! You can show, that with an infinite amount of beings, each being could count a finite strand of each number, so that technically ALL of the numbers are counted, but it’s impossible for ONE being to do this. If this one being suddenly parallel processes all of these infinite beings, an error will occur, because there is no end!! What this means, when dealing with infinites, is that a being cannot know everything that can be known by beings who know things!!! Not only are they not omniscient, they can only know an infinitesimal amount of knowledge relative to the actual knowledge know by beings in the infinite universe!! IF it’s infinite!!

So the logical theist may say that God can only know things that can be known and that there are only a finite amount of beings!! And God is the only one parallel processing a finite amount of beings who only hold a finite amount of knowledge!! BUT, there is a problem with this! If you are parallel processing EVERYTHING, so that you know EVERYTHING, it doesn’t matter whether the beings are finite, because you still hit an infinity convergence… what happens is that this is not like ordinary knowledge where we say this is different than that!! There is no longer anything OUTSIDE OF GOD, with which God can distinguish Gods self as existing, there is no such thing as an “other” thus no base for the sentient structure to emerge… the Buddha also used this argument as well, except his wording was that everything is dependant arising, I’m just putting a modern twist on his other argument.

Another way to think of this is that Because god knows everything, and we are all being parallel processed by God in order for God to know this, and God is not ignorant of anything… then WE cannot be ignorant of anything either, we, would all have to be omniscient in order for God to be omniscient.

Those are my other arguments.

But then you can say that God created murder. One thing that Buddhism doesn’t explain, which they think they did explain, is that there is something called karma… and for them it explains why some people are rich, poor, smart, beautiful, dumb, ugly, diseased, etc… but it’s really not an explanation at all, because it never explains why some people do good things to get good karma and why some people don’t… what it presumes to have in explanatory power, doesn’t actually exist.

If by definition you can’t count all the digits of pi, then by definition a being that is all-knowing isn’t alleged to be able to do so.

Yes and no. No, this technically isn't true because it's probably impossible to actually have an infinite number of being knowing things.  I mean, who actually claims there's an infinite universe? Scientists don't these days, Christians sure don't, so what good is that thesis?  Pretty much everybody now agrees that the universe isn't infinite, and therefore there is some particular number of beings out there capable of knowing things, and a God could easily know more than all of them combined without knowing impossible stuff like all the infinite digits of pi. 
On the other hand, even in a finite universe there may be things God can't know that finite beings can. Maybe God can't know what it's like to be a finite being. Maybe God can't know what it feels like to be Uccisore.
Yeah, you sure can!  Created is just a word, and we have to think about what it implies.  Take your favorite serial killer- mine is Albert Fish. He had a grandmother.  We can say that Albert Fish's grandmother 'created' him in a sense. But I don't think we can say she created him in the sense that she made him a serial killer and that she ought to feel guilty about it.  So it just depends on what kind of work you want 'God created murder' to accomplish.

One of the other problems with the freewill argument that theists use ALOT is that you can only have freewill if you can murder, which I think is absurd, so their argument ends up reducing to “You can only have freewill if you WANT to murder.” There are plenty of people who have no desire whatsoever to murder, never fantasize about it, anything… by their argument, the only people who have no freewill are the good people… absurd conclusion.

Well… Albert Fish’s grandmother is not given the quality of creating all of the conditions of the cosmos, God is.

I think you are basing a lot of your system on your interactions with theists that, by the way you describe them, seem kinda dumb.   I'm a firm believer that one's own beliefs can only be slightly stronger than the strongest countered critic. 

A person has free will if their actions are determined by their volition, and not (exhaustively) by previous physical conditions. What a person ‘can’ do, what they want to do, and so on doesn’t have much to do with it.

Either you think you have free will or you don’t. If you don’t have free will, then you didn’t discover that God doesn’t exist, your brain was just pushed that way by antecedent physical conditions. Nobody can be convinced of your arguments unless antecedent physical conditions necessitate that it be so. You can’t know if you’re right or not, because logic and reason and facts don’t compel your beliefs, the near-random stirring of atoms does that.
If you do think you have free will, then you already know that the culpability for your actions doesn’t extend backward infinitely through time, it stops with you. So I don’t have anything to convince you of.

That’s completely aside from the point that was being made and which this was a reply to… God could have created freewill without creating murder.

He wasn’t arguing that one can only have freewill if one can murder. So yours is a straw man argument. It’s irrelevant here.

Ahh… sorry if it appeared that I was referencing him, I was referencing the concept from other arguments I’ve seen other make to keep the topic as informative as I could, you’ll notice when I stated this that I mentioned “[Another] argument theists use a lot…”

1.) He did, for a given definition of ‘create’. You can’t create the free actions of another person, by definition.
2.) You’re being too specific. You can’t have a creature with free will without the possibility that they will do something you don’t want them to do. If it wasn’t murder, it would be something else. And for all you know, there’s all sorts of horrible horrible things that humans don’t do (because we haven’t/can’t think of them) that make murder seem tame by comparison. I personally doubt that, but if you want to introduce the idea that God could make creatures that are free, and yet somehow can’t do certain things, then since you’re a human, you can’t deny that He may in fact have done just that.

I agree with this. Sounds logical to me. That logical theists are better to interact with. It really is difficult to interact with the illogical ones.

But isn’t God beyond logic? Is that why, perchance, that, it’s difficult to interact with God?

I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘beyond logic’. To say that a being could ignore logic is to misunderstand what logic is. Logic is just how we make sure that our words are actually referring to something. Objects in space or beings in reality aren’t bound to it, free of it, beyond it, or anything else.

But if God creates a person knowing that he will become a murderer, even if by the person’s own choice, he is creating a murderer.

He sure is!