God Does Not Exist

Issue of Debate FormatProposal accepted.Negative CaseNatural Law Argument"Unfortunately, that is not the argument I am presenting"It is a reiteration of your argument. I used it for simplicity; the casual voter will realise this.Let's compare:"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 time"This corresponds to: "p1 There are natural laws which govern the universe" "P2 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."This corresponds with: "c1 That law giver is God" and "p2 All laws have a law giver"Just because I reiterated your argument for simplicity's sake, does not mean you can evade the contentions."What created the laws is irrelevant to the debate." Not at all. God is not only defined as being omniscient, omnipotent etc. He is defined as being the creator of the universe. I mentioned this earlier in the debate and it was completely ignored. Hence, Con's argument (even if completely sound) is still inadequate. Nevertheless, I will refute Con's interpretation of the natural laws argument."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 time""Natural laws, on the other hand, are descriptive: they are human concepts that describe how some aspect of the universe behaves." (1) Not all laws are consistent with everything either: "For example, entities governed by the laws of quantum mechanics do not follow the same thermodynamic laws that govern the macro universe. " (1)"P2 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."It has not been shown that there needs to be a cause of consistency. Earlier in the debate, Con defines laws as: "A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present." Wikipedia defines laws as being "strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified)" He then comes to the conclusion that these laws have an enforcer, and that the definition coins that outcome. Why? How does this definition do this? He uses circular logic to arrive at this conclusion. Nowhere does it state that it needs to be enforced; all it states is that it happens if the certain conditions are present. Enforce can be defined as: "cause (something) to happen by necessity or force" (2)As aforementioned, nowhere in that denotation says that it is caused to happen by "necessity or force". Moreover, this premise commits the 'reification fallacy' -- Bertrand Russell states: ""We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature."" (1) to extend this: "the laws in question are descriptive abstractions of what the universe does, not prescriptive legislations about what the universe can do" (1) hence, there is no reason to believe that these laws need an enforcer, as they are not analogous to legislative laws. Even if all this was proven to be false, and The Great Enforcer was proven to be real, it would create a euthphro dilemma: if the Enforcer enforces all laws, then it coins the question: where did this Enforcer get His laws?Even if all this was proven to be false, there is no way to deduce what the enforcer is: "even if we grant the false premises that there are prescriptive natural laws, and by extension the existence of a lawgiver god, it does not follow that that god is the one the apologist has in mind, or even that there is only one god involved. It could just as likely be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, purple space pixies, Santa Claus, or invisible pink unicorns, as it could be Yahweh."(1)I have shown that the Natural Law argument is only a reiteration of my opponent's. Despite this, I refuted his interpretation of it regardless; he cannot say that I am refuting a wrong argument.Attributes of God: OmnipotenceCon 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."I am hurt that my opponent would even question my integrity. I commend my opponent not to beat around the bush, and if he wants to accuse me of being uncharitable please present solid evidence of this being the case. If I misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize, but it seems to me that you're trying to get brownie points with the voters. Nevertheless, the ad hoc assumption is that this enforcer must have omnipotence... If your argument is correct we know: The enforcer has power over all entities The enforcer enforces all physical laws That's what we know (as fact). You add an ad hoc assumption by stating that this being has unlimited power (something we do not know). Con tries to justify this by saying that you can extrapolate it as a scientific proof. Yet, we would not know for sure unless it was observed, or we know that it couldn't exist without it. Hence, Occam's Razor dictates that the assertion: the enforcer can only do the previously indented things, a priori most likely. "P3: There is nothing in existence more powerful than that which enforces the physical laws. - For something to be more powerful, it would have to be able to resist the enforcer's powerP4: The enforcer of physical laws is the most powerful force in the universe, i.e. all powerful- From P3" Premise three: You stated that all this being does is enforce things in the universe, hence something transcendent could be more powerful than this being. This premise is not cogent. Premise four: Just because it could be the most powerful being in the universe, does not mean there isn't anything less powerful that is external to the universe. Attributes of God: Omniscience "Therefore, the cause of laws' consistency must have access to the knowledge of everything, everywhere." Not necessarily. It might not know how to create energy, matter etc. ex nihilio. That has not been demonstrated. The ad hoc assumption here is that it must have unlimited knowledge, because it knows everything within the universe. This is obviously limited, and Occam's Razor opposes this argument as well. Attributes of God: Transcendence No problem with this "Or does Pro simply attempt more smoke-and-mirrors'" Please don't make such an unfounded assertion without evidence. Affirmative CaseA2 Eternalism "Pro offers this definition without any citation." It will now be sourced: "All space-time, matter, and energy" (3) Since this definition was proposed first, Con has no right to change it. "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." Under the pretenses of the definition provided, this does not explain the creation of time (something Con needs to prove, as God (by definition) created all matter, space-time and energy). Con's definition of the universe is self-refuting, as he suggests that time can exist externally to the universe, which is preposterous. He also states that the universe is only matter and space. Space and time are intertwined and can only co-exist. "If the arrow of time doesn't need a cause, then there's no requirement for God to cause it." Time pertains to "universe", so yes it He does. The argument still follows through; there is no creation, without an arrow of time, what caused the arrow to exist, or if it even needs a cause is irrelevant. A3-2 Omnipotence Paradox "We can walk, talk, think, feel... When examining overall limitations, the rock is certainly much more limited." 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. A4 The Argument from Atemporal Minds I am ok with the reiteration of "knowledge" as it does not affect my argument. However, to state that this God is omniscient without intelligence it could not create the universe. Intelligence is defined as: ""the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". If God 'knew' how to create a universe, without being intelligent, He could not 'apply' that knowledge and go ahead and create one. Equally, if this God was not intelligent, it would put a limit on what God can do, hence this being would not be omnipotent. I have shown why this casual chain is justified. Conclusion For voters: I have demonstrated that Con's only argument is fallacious as it commits the reification fallacy, the equivocation fallacy, and that physical laws cannot be enforced and comes to an unwarranted conclusion... Bare in mind, Con has not presented any argument that this being created all space-time, matter and energy ex nihilio - out of nothing. It is impossible for Con to fulfill this burden of proof. So even if his argument remains, it does not negate the resolution. I have shown that Con has no way to prove that the Enforcer needs omnipotence, and omniscience. All my arguments (bar the quantum superposition) remain. Hence, I affirm the resolution. I thank my opponent for this debate. By the way, you can not present any new arguments Con. (1) http://wiki.ironchariots.org...(2) Google "Define 'enforce'" (3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...