The Evidence Points to Atheism

BOP is shared, I apologize for the oversight.I would first like to offer a rebuttal to my opponent's contention which is as follows: "Magic8000's Non-Cognitivism Argument" God is outside of our understanding and experience We give meaning to words by our understanding and experience 3. C. “God” is meaningless (From 1 and 2)" (sic)I agree with the first point, that God is outside of our understanding and experience. However, the second point is where we run into trouble. My opponent states: "2 is simply known a priori and I don't think it will be disputed. If Con wishes to dispute it, he must provide a meaningful word that doesn't refer to anything that is within our understanding and experience." There are many objects outside of our understanding that can be proved or disproved. How about "infinity?" Infinity (N.): 1. a : the quality of being infiniteb : unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : boundlessness 2 : an indefinitely great number or amount infinity of stars> [1]Even though we obviously do not have true understanding or experience of infinity, we still use when studying science. Think about it. Pi is infinite, a singularity has infinite density, and there are an infinite number of numbers. We may not understand those things, nor have we experienced them, but that doesn't mean that we can't discuss whether singularities have infinite density or if pi has an end. Those words have meaning, even though we don't have understanding of them, nor have we experienced them, but that doesn't mean we cannot discuss them.Just because we do not have understanding or meaning of an object or concept does not mean that the do not exist, we can still discuss them and decide whether they are true or false.Now on to my contention:My main contention has three parts. Time and Causality, Conservation of Mass and Energy, and The Only Viable SolutionTime and Causality:At sometime in the past, the universe had a beginning. Everything that is under the constraint of the laws of physics must have a beginning. Isaac Newton's third law says that "Every action must have a positive and equal reaction."[2] Flip it around and you get "Every reaction must have an equal action that caused it." The same goes for the universe, since it is under the bonds of the laws of physics. The universe needed a beginning, but it could not have caused itself, as we will see in the next part of my contention.Conservation of Mass and Energy:The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed [3]. Since under the Laws of Physics matter and energy cannot be created, the universe could not create itself. It too is under bondage to the Laws of Physics.The Only Viable Solution:If nothing under the authority of the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy can cause the creation of matter and energy, the action that created the reaction of the universe, the only viable solution is that something outside of the laws of physics took the action that created matter and energy. The only force or being that is outside of that must be God. By my opponent's own words, God is "Omnipotent." Omnipotence (N.): 1: The quality or state of being omnipotent 2: an agency or force of unlimited power [4]Something or someone that has the quality of omnipotence is omnipotent, having no restraints. No restraints such as the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. God is the only Cause that is outside of thelLaws of physics, so He is the only force that could take the action that would cause the reaction of the universe. Summary:Every reaction must have an action, so the universe must have had a beginning. The Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy prevent anyone or anything but an omnipotent being, who would be outside the boundaries of the Laws of Physics, from taking such action. God is the only omnipotent Being. Therefore, God must exist in order for the universe to exist. Since the universe does exist, God must exist.Sources:Logic[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...[3]http://www.lightandmatter.com...[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...