God Does Not Exist

Issue of Debate FormatI have a point of contention with the proposed debate format. Please see the comments.Negative CaseNatural Law ArgumentPro presents the "Natural Law Argument" and proceeds to argue against it. Specifically, Pro argues against the following: "p1 There are natural laws which govern the universe p2 All laws have a law giver c1 That law giver is God" Unfortunately, that is not the argument I am presenting. My argument goes as follows:P1 Science has provided us with overwhelming evidence to show that there exist universal laws which are consistent for all things, in all places, over all of timeP2 The cause of the consistency of the universal laws passes the requisite attribute test for God as outlined in Round 1: Omnipotence, Transcendence and Omniscience. P3 Something exists that passes the requisite attribute test for God.C: God ExistsNote that I do not speak anywhere of what created the laws, a.k.a. the 'law giver'. What created the laws is irrelevant to the debate. I've shown that whatever causes laws to be consistent meets the requisite attributes of God, which is enough to prove God exists.Similarly, there is no non-sequitur. The conclusion follows from P3, which itself follows from P1 and P2 with no gaps.Finally, there is no reification fallacy, as it is not up for debate as to whether physical laws are consistent. By definition they are (see my arguments in round 2), and we have a huge amount of scientific evidence to back up that definition.Bringing up the "Natural Law Argument" is simply a distraction, and has nothing to do with the debate at hand. I invite my opponent to debate my argument, and not someone else's.Attributes of God: OmnipotencePro writes:"Your hypothesis ads an ad hoc assumption"Pro asserts this, yet does not answer my question as to what assumptions were ad hoc. Pro gives no examples, and just states this as truth. If Pro is stalling until Round 5 to offer an example, it would not be very charitable, as I would have no opportunity to rebut it."From here I need not refute Con's logical argument as it I have already refuted the natural law argument"Pro has decided that, by refuting someone else's argument, Pro doesn't need to address the arguments I made. As I have shown that my argument is not the natural law argument, my case for omnipotence still stands. I invite my opponent to address my arguments from Round 3, or otherwise let them stand as sound.Attributes of God: OmnisciencePro writes:"This argument suffers the same fate as the omnipotence one -- whether I can list an objective feature that the universe has shown this enforcer not to know. Occam's Razor simply refutes this leap"Whether you can list a feature or not is irrelevant. The fact that universal laws are consistent for everything, everywhere, for all time is true by definition. That definition is backed up by thousands upon thousands of scientific studies. The cause of the the laws' consistency is able to make them consistent for all things everywhere. Therefore, the cause of laws' consistency must have access to the knowledge of everything, everywhere. Occam's Razor has no place here, as the conclusion logically flows from the definition of physical laws.Attributes of God: TranscendencePro writes:"How so? If we apply that logic, a builder cannot enter a house after one creates it"It makes no sense to equate the cause of laws' consistency to a builder. A builder creates a building, stops, and then can enter the building. Physical laws' consistency is constantly maintained and never stops. The universe was not created at the beginning and is then done. It is forever being changed by the universal laws. Even if one insists that God must be able to enter into space-time, it still doesn't contradict my argument. I have proven that the cause of laws' consistency exists outside space-time and is transcendent. If the cause of laws' consistency happened to also exist within space-time, it wouldn't disprove its existence outside space-time. There is no reason to believe existence must be limited to one or the other. In ConclusionAs I will not have the opportunity to defend my arguments in Round 5, I will conclude here.I have successfully shown that there are universal laws that apply to all things, in all places, across all time. Science shows us these exist and that they are consistent.That consistency must have a cause. Without a cause, the only alternative is that physical laws are consistent simply by coincidence, which is absurd. The laws created everything in the universe, defined as "All existing matter and space considered as a whole"1. If the laws weren't consistent, then the universe would not exist as it does.The cause of consistency is omnipotent, able to cause laws to be consistent to all things. It is transcendent, as it cannot be influenced by the changes to space and time that are made by the enforcement of laws. It is omniscient, as it must have access to the knowledge of every real piece of matter and space if it is able to uphold that consistency universally.The cause of laws consistency exists, and it meets the prerequisites of God as defined in Round 1. Therefore, it qualifies as God and therefore God exists.My opponent has attempted to discredit my argument mainly through misdirection: In Round 2, Pro accuses me of using the bare assertion fallacy and begging the question, but then backs down later. Pro argues God isn't omniscient because of time considerations, but then backs down later.In Round 3, Pro accuses me of using an ad hoc assumption, but doesn't state what that assumption is. Later, when asked to provide specifics, Pro refuses and continues simply to assert the existence of ad hoc assumptions, providing no examples.In Round 4, Pro introduces and debates against an argument that is significantly different than the one I have presented. Pro then proceeds to ignore my arguments, under the justification that Pro has disproved Pro's new argument. Pro mentions Occam's Razor without explaining why it is relevant. Finally, Pro offers a comparison to a 'builder' (which turns out to be invalid), without explaining how it applies.Throughout, my argument has held up, while my opponent has tried to misdirect, argue without providing reasons or examples, and bring up points and arguments irrelevant to the discussion. I ask the voters to look carefully at Pro's rebuttals in Round 5. Do they strike at the heart of my argument? Or does Pro simply attempt more smoke-and-mirrors' arguing, lacking either relevance or support? Affirmative CaseA2 EternalismPro writes:"The universe is defined as 'all space-time, matter and energy as a whole'"Pro offers this definition without any citation. Oxford dictionary defines the universe as, "All existing matter and space considered as a whole"1. The universe is not defined as having time as part of it, so to create the universe you would not have to also create time. Pro even admits to this:Pro writes:"We have no reason to believe that the arrow of time needs a cause"This sentence undermines the entire Eternalism argument. Pro's original argument states: "God could not have created the universe, without an arrow of time. Since there isn't an arrow of time in a timeless, static place, God could not have created the universe"If the arrow of time doesn't need a cause, then there's no requirement for God to cause it. If there's no requirement for God to cause it, then it could already exist for God to create the universe.If the arrow of time does need a cause, my questions in Round 3 are valid and Pro needs explain how the arrow of time was first caused.A3-2 Omnipotence ParadoxRe: "Something that is not limited is more powerful than something that is limited"Pro writes:"we would have more physical limitations than a rock, and are still able to do 'more things' than that rock"Although the rock would have fewer physical laws than humans, we certainly have fewer limitations than the rock. We can walk, talk, think, feel... When examining overall limitations, the rock is certainly much more limited. Again, the definition of power is, "The ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way"2. By definition, something that is less able or has a more limited capacity to do something is less powerful.A4 The Argument from Atemporal MindsPro writes:"knowledge is defined as 'acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition'"This is just one of several Oxford dictionary definitions. It doesn't seem very appropriate, as the typical concept of God doesn't have God gaining omniscience through extensive studying or investigative work. Even so, to prove that God can be omniscient (have unlimited knowledge) without a mind, it is sufficient to show that God can have unlimited knowledge according to at least one of the definitions of knowledge. In particular, knowledge is defined as "something that is or may be known; information"3. This definition is more appropriate, as we usually think of God as having instantaneous access to all information in the universe, to everything that is or could ever possibly be known. Nowhere in that definition is any process implied. Knowledge is simply a body of information, which doesn't require a mind.Finally, Pro writes:"intelligence is contingent upon knowledge ... and intelligence is contingent upon a mind. Hence, I have created a casual link of contingency"Not quite. Sure, intelligence is contingent on (needs) knowledge, and intelligence needs a mind. But the links don't go both ways. Just because intelligence is contingent on knowledge (I --> K) doesn't therefore mean knowledge is contingent on intelligence (K -X> I). With your setup, it's still possible to have knowledge without intelligence.1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...