To refute a thing i need a definition of it.
I made a very nice little god out of cardboard
However I don't think you are talking about him, so I will tell you parts that I totally refute
Creator of the Universe: this is a silly idea, Used to explain where everything comes from, but the inherent hole in the theory is that it does not explain where the creator came from. To put the explanation on it that she was always there is no better than saying the elements of the universe is composed of were always there as such the notion of creator is redundant.
Super intelligent guiding force. Problem with this is Darwin, you don't even have to accept Darwin's scientifically proven theory for it to undermine the argument for a divine force, Darwin shows that that chance could bring about all the features we find around us, as such in any comparison the oft speculated divine force has done no better than chance so it is irrelevant, as it makes no difference whether it is there or not.
God of love. the concept of a being of universal good does not stand up to anyone's experience so for that to exist there has to be a bady that cocks up her plans. But if The first God is so right there is no explanation why the second god would turn against it, apart from jealousy, but that is an attribute of the first god. In Short it is not a god of love it is a god about power as such it is my duty to deny it because it is primarily about retaining power not sharing.
However that falls apart because a bad god does not fit normal experience any better than a good god, which brings us back to Darwin
And Chance
So if your definition of god is chance then I at the moment cannot think of an argument against it
I made a very nice little god out of cardboard
However I don't think you are talking about him, so I will tell you parts that I totally refute
Creator of the Universe: this is a silly idea, Used to explain where everything comes from, but the inherent hole in the theory is that it does not explain where the creator came from. To put the explanation on it that she was always there is no better than saying the elements of the universe is composed of were always there as such the notion of creator is redundant.
Super intelligent guiding force. Problem with this is Darwin, you don't even have to accept Darwin's scientifically proven theory for it to undermine the argument for a divine force, Darwin shows that that chance could bring about all the features we find around us, as such in any comparison the oft speculated divine force has done no better than chance so it is irrelevant, as it makes no difference whether it is there or not.
God of love. the concept of a being of universal good does not stand up to anyone's experience so for that to exist there has to be a bady that cocks up her plans. But if The first God is so right there is no explanation why the second god would turn against it, apart from jealousy, but that is an attribute of the first god. In Short it is not a god of love it is a god about power as such it is my duty to deny it because it is primarily about retaining power not sharing.
However that falls apart because a bad god does not fit normal experience any better than a good god, which brings us back to Darwin
And Chance
So if your definition of god is chance then I at the moment cannot think of an argument against it
