JVH:
"Argument By Selective Observation or Argument By Selective Reading, also called cherry picking. -
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
When you want to refute a piece, you need to refute it in its entirety, not just picking bits an pieces and forget about the rest."
As I indicated in my response, I began my criticism with the 3 introductory sections of your posted essay with full intention of posting my comments on the rest.
And I believe I covered the entirety of those 3 sections - if not point out where I didn not?
I am still composing the rest of my response.
JVH:
"It might seem undoable to refute a piece in its entirety, especially when it's quite an extensive one, but it is actualy rather easy to do."
Indeed....I've done longer pieces before - but the constraints of real life are many. I make no apologies for them.
JVH:
"First make sure you are about to try to refute claims and not a piece by someone questioning existing claims: that would be shifting the burden of proof.
(The burden of proof; the burden to do the work, lies with the claimees (of affirmatives); it's up to them to make the case; to provide the conclusive evidence and/or deductive arguments in support of their claims.)"
Apart from the rather confusing mesage title (which gave no indication if 'Chad' was the source or was being addressed by you) there was no indication of the source of your essay.
Note:
It's always wise to include the provenance of a quoted work, nor is it particularly dificult.
A mere set of double quotations at beginning and end (" ") would suffice to indicate that it was not your work originally.
In addition, the link you posted AFTER my response would have been useful and instructive had it been posted at the end (or anywhere else) within the body of your original post.
Otherwise a simple bibliographic reference would suffice.
For example:
Docterman, Chad: (1996) Why the Christian God is impossible.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html
JVH:
"When the latter, you are barking up the wrong tree; when the former, all you need to do is to refute the central point. This means you have to identify the central point and commit explicitly to that central point. If you can't find the central point, you have nothing to refute, and you are arguing with a straw man."
Good advice - which perhaps the original author, Mr. Docterman, would need to take heed of.
Cheers