God Does Not Exist

As your extensive and sourced argument was posted in less than an hour of my acceptance, I will assume you have spent time crafting this argument before. DISPROOF OF THE FIRST ARGUMENT: To disprove your first argument, I will disprove your second premise: "A non-temporal mind cannot exist." (Only one premise must be dismissed to disprove an argument, I hope you will agree.) Here I think is where we differ in opinion: you believe thought is "a jump from A to B", whereas I believe thought is a literally instantaneous phenomenon. I will cite the work of renowned professor Douglas Hofstadter here, but only the title of a speech of his at Stanford, "Analogy as the Core of Cognition." Thought doesn't necessarily involve thinking by definition. Thought, in its most basic form, is the instantaneous connection of two pre-introduced concepts. Many organisms today involve this mindless, instantaneous thought. These organisms exhibit instantaneous reactions to instantaneous stimuli (based on analogy of previous experiences of the organism). This is what I believe separates humans from most organsisms - temporal as opposed to non-temporal thoughts. Humans, after experience of living, exhibit temporal thought - we think of different possibilities from a recurring stimuli (almost Einstein's definition of insanity). Say the front door opens and it's your mother - and she's yelling at you. If the door opened and you were a temporal-thinking human, you would take time to process thought, realize that it was your mom last time (form an analogy), but realize that, according to laws of probability, it probably isn't your mom this time. If you were a non-temporal thinking organism and saw the front door open, you would form the analogy that {door = angry mother}, and would probably run. In simple words, thinking is temporal, thought is non-temporal. Thinking involves connecting various experiences (forming multiple analogies and possibilities), whereas thought involves the exact same instantaneous reaction to the exact same instantaneous analogy. DISPROOF OF THE SECOND ARGUMENT: I have reread and reread your second argument, but I still can not see the logic in your first premise, "If God exists, humans do not exist." A supernatural being existed in the first place, created life at Time X, and life evolved to what it is today. I do not see how if a supernatural being existed, created time, space, and life at times X, Y, and Z, respectively, the supernatural being could exist while life (humans) also exist. DISPROOF OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH ARGUMENTS: I combine the disproof of the third and fourth arguments here because they are essentially the same thing. Your premise of the third argument, "If God exists, Gratuitous suffering does not exist," is juxtaposed with your second premise, "Gratuitous suffering exists," solely for the purpose of obvious disproof of a god. OF COURSE GRATUITOUS SUFFERING EXISTS. Humans choices, were, are, and always will be inherent and unshakable. A supernatural being created life with the opportunity of choice and therefore with the opportunity of gratuitous suffering....GRATUITOUS SUFFERING AND "GOD" CAN EXIST AT THE SAME TIME. Your first premise of the fourth argument, "If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good..." is nonsensical...IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT ALL GRATUITOUS SUFFERING IS NECESSARY FOR A GREATER GOOD. Just because gratuitous suffering exists IN NO WAY suggests that its existence is necessary for a greater good. It's gratuitous suffering; it has no purpose. It is the product of human choice. I don't think further disproof of this argument is necessary. THE ILLOGICALITY OF THE FIFTH ARGUMENT: There is no way to prove or provide disproof of your fifth argument. Just because an individual can not "experience" a supernatural being doesn't mean the being exists or does not exist...it just means that individual did not "experience" the supernatural being. Therefore, you have no way to logically prove your fifth argument, and it is therefore rendered invalid. We could sit here and talk about whether or not we each believe in a supernatural being, but opinions are opinions (not facts), and it will get us nowhere. A SIMPLE ARGUMENT FOR A SUPERNATURAL BEING: As you previously stated, a supernatural being "caused" time. Therefore, this being either started time or created it. As time doesn't actually exist and is an obvious human creation, this can only mean the supernatural being started "time". If the being was able to start "time", would it not be able to stop and control "time" as well, and thus render the "temporal" part of your argument invalid? The way I see it (and excuse the exaggerated, but accurate ultimatum) there are two possible theories of existence: 1. There once was nothing, and then from that nothing came everything. (An exaggerated abbreviation of the Big Bang Theory). 2. There once was something, and then from that something came everything. (An exaggerated abbreviation of some sort of supernatural creationism). "Something" creating everything seems much more logical to me than "nothing" creating everything. I would like to point out that, as I am not Christian (or religious, for that matter), I hope when you say "God" in your argument, you mean a supernatural being (as you stated the debate was about in the first round). If you are referring to the nonexistence of the Christian God, I am not here to debate that, for I agree with you. If you are referring to a supernatural being, please clarify in the next round.