Changes

: The arguments were not meant to be of the Christian God in particular, but admittedly that wasn't clear, so I've added some explanation to the article.  Many arguments ''against'' God's existence are against ''any'' god, not specifically the Christian God, so arguing the basic position that some sort of God must exist is a legitimate first step.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:27, 9 November 2008 (EST)

: The arguments were not meant to be of the Christian God in particular, but admittedly that wasn't clear, so I've added some explanation to the article.  Many arguments ''against'' God's existence are against ''any'' god, not specifically the Christian God, so arguing the basic position that some sort of God must exist is a legitimate first step.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:27, 9 November 2008 (EST)

:: Mmkay. Still feel they're... well, to be honest, there've been a few times where an apologist used a version of one of these as "one of the many ways" God can be proven, and it always especially irks me. Actually, you can apply that to all of these, pretty much - you can get a "God" that's very unlike the God of the Bible from even the strongest of these arguments. But yeah, clarifying section. Nifty. [[User:Zastem|Zastem]] 23:45, 9 November 2008 (EST)

:: Mmkay. Still feel they're... well, to be honest, there've been a few times where an apologist used a version of one of these as "one of the many ways" God can be proven, and it always especially irks me. Actually, you can apply that to all of these, pretty much - you can get a "God" that's very unlike the God of the Bible from even the strongest of these arguments. But yeah, clarifying section. Nifty. [[User:Zastem|Zastem]] 23:45, 9 November 2008 (EST)