God Does Not Exist

Issue of Debate FormatFor voters who might not have seen the comments section, Pro and Con have agreed for Con to be able to rebut Pro's arguments in Round 5, so as to give both sides an equal number of chances to rebut. I will not be defending my arguments in this round, as we are already even in chances to defend. You can find my closing statement for my arguments at the end of my Round 4 post. Affirmative CaseA2 Eternalism Pro writes: "[Pro's definition of the word 'Universe'] will now be sourced: 'All space-time, matter, and energy' Since this definition was proposed first, Con has no right to change it ... Time pertains to 'universe'"I assert the right to challenge any definition presented that was not agreed upon before the start of the debate. Pro offers a hand-picked definition of 'Universe' that includes Time from thefreedictionary.com1, a website that aggregates definitions from a variety of other dictionaries. However, also on the same thefreedictionary.com page is the following definition in which Time does not pertain to 'Universe':"All matter and energy, including Earth, the galaxies, and the contents of the space between the galaxies, regarded as a whole."1The same goes for the definition I offered:"All existing matter and space considered as a whole"2This last definition comes from the Oxford Dictionaries website, run by Oxford University Press, which as been publishing the Oxford English Dictionary since 1884 3. Note that there is no definition of 'Universe' on the Oxford Dictionaries page in which Time is an element.Using either my definition, or the other definition from Pro's source, the only things that must be made during the creation of the universe are matter, energy (which is equivalent to matter)4 and space. Anything else, including Time and the Arrow of Time, could already preexist the creation of the Universe, as defined in both sources. Therefore, God could definitely create the Universe in the presence of a preexistent Arrow of Time. Even Pro's arguments support this conclusion, with Pro stating: "what caused the arrow to exist, or if it even needs a cause is irrelevant."I wholeheartedly agree with this assertion.Finally, there is good reason why many definitions of 'Universe' do not include time. There are some strong theories that time does not actually exist, and is simply an illusion of how we experience an already defined universe5,6,7, much like a reader reading an already completed book. A3-2 Omnipotence Paradox In response to my statement: "We can walk, talk, think, feel... When examining overall limitations, the rock is certainly much more limited.", Pro writes: "You just proved your premise false; you concede that the rock has fewer physical limitations, yet we can "walk, talk" etc. and a rock cannot." These arguments about semantics are getting frustrating. Please note that I used the phrase 'overall limitations'. You cannot simply focus on one type of limitation, in this case physical limitations, without consideration for all others. As my opponent has refused to rebut my following point, I will simply restate it. Power is defined as: "The ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way"8 By definition, something that is less able or has a more limited capacity to do something is less powerful. The rock you proposed is more limited in its ability and capacity to do something or act in a particular way, therefore it is less powerful. Conversely, we are less limited overall than the rock in the ability or capacity to act, therefore we are more powerful. Hence my original premise: "Something that is not limited is more powerful than something that is limited" A4 The Argument from Atemporal Minds Pro writes:"to state that this God is omniscient without intelligence it could not create the universe ... If God 'knew' how to create a universe, without being intelligent, He could not 'apply' that knowledge and go ahead and create one." There is no requirement that God needs to 'apply' knowledge. Applying knowledge implies an action taken over time, with a point in time before the application of knowledge, and a point in time after. By definition, God is transcendent and exists outside of space-time. Thus, the universe could be created without knowledge needing to be applied. Furthermore, because God is omnipotent by definition, God has the power to create a universe without applying knowledge. Pro writes: "Intelligence is defined as: 'the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills' ... if this God was not intelligent, it would put a limit on what God can do, hence this being would not be omnipotent." Not having intelligence would not limit God at all. Because God is omniscient, God has no need to acquire knowledge. God already has all knowledge at God's disposal. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, God is transcendent, does not act in time, and so does not 'apply' knowledge. Note that by your definition, computers are intelligent as they have the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. And, as you have argued that intelligence is contingent on having a mind, you are arguing that all computers have minds. I think most people would disagree. In ConclusionFor Voters Pro offered five arguments as proof of the non-existence of God: 1. Transcendent Entities Cannot "Exist" In Round 3, Pro conceded that this argument is reliant on the Omnipotence Paradox argument below, essentially making this argument redundant in the debate. 2. Eternalism Pro argues that before the creation of the universe was a "timeless, static place", that God created the universe "ex nihilio". In the original debate premise, however, there is no such requirement set out. The only requirement was that God created the universe. I have definitively shown that by several common, trusted definitions of the universe, including one from Pro's source, that the creation of time, or an 'Arrow of Time' is not a required part of creating the universe. Time could already preexist or, as some theorize, time may not exist at all. Regardless, my opponent backs me up by stating that "what caused the arrow to exist, or if it even needs a cause is irrelevant". 3. Quantum Superposition Pro has agreed that this argument has been refuted. 4. Omnipotence Paradox Pro attempts to use a proof by contradiction to argue that something omnipotent can't exist. In Round 3, I provided a valid and sound logical argument to show that something omnipotent cannot be disproven by contradiction, as by definition, something all powerful has the ability to exist in the presence of a contradiction. Instead of attacking my argument, in the following rounds Pro creates a semantic debate about the term 'limitations' in which Pro tries to argue that a human's limitations are greater than a rock's. Even the term 'Paradox' goes against Pro: "A seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true."9 This paradox falls in line with others such as Zeno's Paradoxes10, that sound reasonable at first, but don't fall in line with reality. 5. Argument from Atemporal Minds In order to be sound, Pro's argument requires the premise "knowledge is contingent upon a mind" to be true. In Round 5, Pro agrees to the definition of knowledge being "something that is or may be known; information"11. This fits with the definition that libraries, computers and the internet contain knowledge. None of those three have minds, however. Since we can show there exists something that has knowledge but no mind, then it is false that knowledge is contingent upon a mind. Thus, Pro's argument is not sound. Pro goes on to argue that if God did not acquire and apply knowledge, then it would be impossible for God to make the universe. I countered with the fact that omniscience means that God already knows everything, and does not need to acquire any knowledge. Furthermore, due to the omnipotent and transcendent nature of God, 'applying' knowledge is unnecessary and nonsensical. Summary Of Pro's original five arguments, every single one has either been refuted, made redundant by another argument, or has devolved into semantic arguments instead of arguing the issue. Pro has not met Pro's BOP obligation, and thus the resolution cannot be affirmed. I wish to quickly address my opponent's conduct in respect to my rebuttals. A few times during this debate, Pro has avoided arguing points raised, and simply dismissed them as strawman arguments, accusing me of moving the goalposts, and of begging the question. Each time, I have had to explain why my rebuttals don't suffer the issues raised, and even afterwards, Pro has still refused to debate some of my arguments presented. Finally, Pro has offered definitions without citations, and then has declared unilaterally that I have "no right" to disagree with the definitions Pro presents. As with my last post, I will call out debating behavior that I don't feel is conducive to a good debate, and will point out arguments that I feel are not made in good faith. I mean no ill will towards my opponent, and I apologize if I have offended. I thank Pro for the debate. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://www.scientificamerican.com...6. http://www.popsci.com...7. http://physicscentral.com...8. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...9. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...10. http://en.wikipedia.org...11. http://dictionary.reference.com...