The Evidence Points to Atheism

Argument 1: Non Cognitivism Con states God is a mind, but is this really a primary attribute? Let's look at the definitions of "mind" Dictionary.com defines mind as noun 1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind. [1] These are all clearly secondary attributes and don't give us a meaningful definition of "God". I can't have a positive belief in a God until a meaningful definition exists. We can only say "God" doesn't exist, referring to the word "God" (as the concept "God" has no meaning). It may be a primary attribute if Con wants to say God has a physical brain, but this would be contradicting a secondary attribute that Con gave. Argument 2: Argument from Reasonable non-belief. Con contradicts himself here. First he says atheists exist for now, then he claims all atheists know God exists. This is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. If I take a polygraph test, Con could just use some ad hoc rationalization like "You're just in denial". Besides, it doesn't answer the argument. Why would God make atheists know he exists and let them deny it. That's just nonsensical. 1-2. Cosmological Argument Con clearly doesn't understand the burden of proof, he also commits the fallacy of excluded middle and the argument from ignorance. If Con makes the claim that God is the cause of the universe, he must prove it. If there was no naturalistic model for the universe"s origin, this doesn't prove God. Con also strawmans me, by saying I must prove something came from absolutely nothing. I never stated this, nor said absolute nothing ever existed. There's many models where the universe comes into existence without the help of a God. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. Keep in mind E=mc^2 shows energy and matter are basically one in the same, they can transform into each other The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. [2] Edward Tryon said The laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. [3] Tryon"s model has been falsified, however there's updated models, such as Alexander Vilenkin"s quantum tunneling model. His model states the universe came from an uncaused quantum tunneling event. [4] [5] We clearly don't need Con"s God hypothesis for the origin of the universe. There are scientific explanations that make predictions and have explanatory power. So why should we accept Con"s hypothesis? ... have a written history of God revealing these attributes over time. written by 60 authors (most who have never met) over thousands of years yet is an integrated message system Fan fiction is the same way. that never contradicts. This is super natural evidence from outside time and space that affirms this premiss. There's a contradiction in the dates of Jesus" birth. It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts. [6] Even if it were true, it doesn't necessarily entail that God exists. If a book existed that contradicted another book of a higher standing, it probably would've been deemed not divine and wouldn't be in the bible. 3. Moral Argument Con claims I contradicted myself, but Con is clearly strawmanning me. He"s making a category mistake, confusing ethical causality with physical causality -which refutes the first premise of the Kalam and Con hasn't objected to-. Con claims in order for a world view to be consistent, it must define meaning. I see no justification for this. Consistent is defined as 1. agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent. 2. constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.: a consistent opponent. 3. holding firmly together; cohering [7] What does this have to do with purpose or meaning? We can easily give our lives purpose and meaning. It doesn't matter if there's no objective purpose. Con basically forfeited this section, same with the fine tuning and Ontological sections. The resolution is affirmed. Back to Con! Sources [1] http://dictionary.com... [2] Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam [3] Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397. [4] http://www.mukto-mona.com... [5] http://pdfcast.org... [6] http://www.infidels.org... [7] http://dictionary.com...