God Does Not Exist

Argument From Temporal Minds My argument is simple: P1: If God exists, a non-temporal mind can exist P2: A non-temporal mind cannot exist C: Therefore, God does not exist The argument is valid Modus Tollens ("If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P."[1]). The question that remains pertains as to what justification there is to believe the premises are actually true. Defense of P1 If God exists, then he transcends time, and thus, God would be timeless and not dependent on time (non-temporal) sans the creation of the first moment of time. Since God has to be a mind, then we can deduce that if God exists; a timeless, or non-temporal mind can exist. This seems to cash out from the very definition of God used in this debate. The issue will be surrounding P2 it seems. Defense of P2 This becomes evident once we unpack the concept of timelessness, and a mind; a contradiction arises. A mind must have thoughts. “A mind” without “thoughts” is like “room” without “space”; it is simply nonsensical. What are thoughts? Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition[2][3][4]. What is thinking? Thinking is a mental action/ process by definition[5][6][7]. An action/ process entails a jump from A to B. A jump from A to B entails a change: Change is intimately bound up with, and requires time: "So construed, the notion of change is obviously bound up with notions of cause, time and motion" - Change and Inconsistency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[8] "Change is intimately bound up with time." - What is philosophy? (University of Florida)[9] This is because when a change occurs that presupposes time for it to occur; or else everything just remains frozen with no movement. This means that to have thoughts, these thoughts have to be temporal. Therefore, to have a mind, the mind must be temporal. Ergo, a non-temporal mind entails a logical contradiction, and cannot be the case."How can a nontemporal mind think? Thinking at its most generic metric requires that this mind have one state and then transition to another." - Ben Schuldt[10]---Since the conclusion of my argument logically follows from the premises, and the premises are true; God does not exist. The Argument From HumansP1: If God exists, humans do not existP2: Humans existC: Therefore, God does not existThis argument is valid Modus Tollens, just as the last one. The debate will be about whether the premises are true.Defense of P1P2, obviously, is not controversial; the issue surrounds P1. Well, God is defined as a perfect being (which is a maximally great being). In other words, this is the greatest conceivable being. Some actions from a being are consistent with this definition, some are not. I am going to show that if God exists, this entails and action by him which contradicts his definition. Thus, God is incoherent and illogical. Take this axiom:A: If Being A does action X at time T, then at time T, Being A did not do something else besides action X at time T, instead of action X at time T. The above is a self-evident truth. If I ate a meal yesterday at 5:00am, then it follows necessarily that at 5:00am yesterday, I wasn't doing something else besides eating a meal at 5:00am, instead of eating a meal at 5:00am. What does all this mean? Well, if God created us at time T, then at time T, he did not create beings greater, or more perfect than humans besides humans, instead of humans at time T. However, that is inconsistent with the idea of the most perfect, and greatest conceivable being. I can can conceive a greater being than one who created humans at time T; one that created a greater, and more perfect species than humans instead of us at time T. Therefore, if God exists, humans don't exist. This argument shows that if humans exist, then God doesn't. The problem is; we clearly exist. I'll end this section with a quote from Philosopher Quentin Smith:"I can't believe that a perfect being would create such things as humans. The main reason that God doesn't exist, is that humans exist. That makes it self-evident that God does not exist." - Quentin Smith[11] The Problem Of Evil P1: If God exists, Gratuitous suffering does not exist P2: Gratuitous suffering exists C: Therefore, God does not exist. This argument is valid Modus Tollens, just as the last one. The debate will be about whether the premises are true. Defense Of P1If God is perfect, then he is omnibenevolent. As Philosopher Ryan Stringer notes: "P1 is a necessary truth based on the properties of God. As a morally perfect being, God must have a morally sufficient reason to permit or create evil; for this is part of what it means to be morally perfect. And since 'gratuitous evil' simply refers to evil that God, if he existed, would have no morally sufficient reason to permit or create, he will not permit or create it if he exists. Thus, God's existence entails the nonexistence of gratuitous evil." - Ryan Stringer[12]Most theists are willing to grant P1, and it is relatively uncontroversial. As Christian philosopher Daniel Howard-Snyder states: "[T]he idea that God may well permit gratuitous evil is absurd. After all, if God can get what He wants without permitting some particular horror (or anything comparably bad), why on earth would He permit it?" - Daniel Howard-Snyder[13] A perfectly good being would only allow suffering, or evil, if it was necessary for some greater good. If a being allowed suffering or evil for no good reason, then this is clearly a lesser being than one who would make sure there was a reason, and that there was a good entailed by the evil in question. Thus, If God exists, gratuitous suffering does not exist. Defense Of P2P1: If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good, then we should not prevent apparently gratuitous suffering P2: We should prevent apparently gratuitous suffering C: Therefore, it is not the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater goodAgain, this argument is valid Modus Tollens. --- Defense of P1 If God exists, then all of the suffering that appears gratuitous is really necessary for some greater good without exception. Tampering with any apparently gratuitous suffering would cancel out the greater good that is necessarily entailed by it. Thus, one ought not do it (more goodness at the end of the day is better then less goodness at the end of the day).--- Defense of P2 Certainly, if a little girl is being brutally raped and possibly may die, we ought to prevent it. Nobody in their right mind who stumbled across this situation would let it continue due to the fact that if they didn't let it continue, they would be cancelling out some greater good that is necessarily entailed by the apparently gratuitous suffering. “The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death [or suffering] serves any greater good.” - Paul Doland[14] The two premises of the argument seem plausible enough to affirm that at least some cases of apparently gratuitous suffering are actually gratuitous, even if other cases of apparently gratuitous suffering really do entail some greater good in the long run. I think we have a convincing argument for the non-existence of God based off of premises that are more plausibly true than there negation. Thus, God does not exist. Divine HiddennessP1: If God exists, then all humans (who are open minded, open hearted, and who's cognitive faculties are functioning) who try to experience God, experience God. P2: Not all humans (who are open minded, open hearted, and who's cognitive faculties are functioning) who try to experience God, experience GodC: Therefore, God does not exist The argument is valid via Modus Tollens Defense of P1This cashes out from the definition of God. If he is all loving, then he would want all capable humans who try to engage in a relationship with him to succeed. As Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig says:"If God exists then he would surely make a way for all persons to know him, and come to relationship with him... For a person with an open mind and an open heart, who's cognitive faculties are functioning properly will come to belief in God" - William Lane Craig[15]Defense Of P2Some of the greatest logicians were Atheists (Bertrand Russell[16]), so nobody can reasonably say that all Atheists don't have working cognitive faculties. Most (if not all) Atheists, I am sure, have tried to speak to God with an open mind and heart but with no results. Many Jews reported feeling abandoned by God during the time they needed him the most[17].Divine Hiddenness strongly disconfirms Theism. ConclusionI presented 4 arguments in favor of the resolution. Con most tear down all 4 arguments, and erect a case of his own to negate the resolution. Sources[1] http://www.philosophy-index.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[7] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[8] http://plato.stanford.edu...[9] http://web.phil.ufl.edu...[10] http://richardcarrier.wikispaces.com...[11] http://www.closertotruth.com...[12] http://www.infidels.org...[13] Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 1999. "Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?" American Philosophical Quarterly 36: 115-29[14] http://www.infidels.org...[15] You-Tube [watch?v=WMxTghJQxEc][16] http://en.wikipedia.org...[17] http://www.myjewishlearning.com...l