God Cannot Logically Be Defended As Real

First of all, nice job copying and pasting literally everything you wrote from this URL: http://www.catholicforum.com... Next, lets go to the actual arguments that "you" made, but first we should go back to the original premise that I made saying that my interpretation of God must be a sentient theistic higher power. I wouldn't reject the idea of a first cause being titled as God, regardless of the true status of our universe. I WOULD contest the logic behind the statement that God can be deemed as necessary. Here is your first point: "The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on." The only thing I think I will be guilty of copying and pasting into this debate would be the definition of Entropy, "a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system." tying into the laws of thermodynamics which accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes. The open system for which live gives plants energy from the sun, then herbivores from eating the said plants, and finally carnivores from eating the herbivores who ate the plants who got their energy from the sun. This "movement" that you describe is due to the regulation of energy in our system which is provided by this relationship we have with the sun. This is your next point: "The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on." The word that the article you copied and pasted was looking for is "The law of the cause in effect states that every effect has a cause which was formed by another effect" then just for the memes "and in the beginning there was an uncaused cause which is given the title of God". I'm beginning to see a pattern of using "something had to come from somewhere" in your arguments. The logic that "something cant come from nothings" isn't necessarily a fallacy, but also isn't true. What IS a fallacy is the claim that God had to have done it due to a lack of explanation of a phenomenon. The fallacy "argument from incredulity" states that that the following is fallacious, "X is produced, X's production cannot be explained, X's production will never be explained, X's creation must be divine." The logic behind this sort of thinking is non sequitur in the sense that it makes the assumption that something without any given explanation is now NOT capable of being explained without any regard to future explanations or exceptions to the original premise. Before I continue to the next point, there are many possible explanations that may shed light on creation from "nothing." One theory is that the state of "nothing" can be created by the collision of matter and antimatter. The collision would make sense due to the observation of there being an increase of 1 matter particle per billion antimatter pairs. The theory suggests that this imbalance is caused by the exertion of energy caused by an instant annihilation of matter-antimatter particle pairs. Also, in context to the argument made regarding "moving" without a first "mover", there is explainable movement causing an expansion to our universe due to a gravitational force exerted on matter caused by hardly-noticeable energy emitted by dark matter. Your third point: "The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being" This statement states that there are beings that are not necessary like cars, trees, birds, us, and in order to balance that lack of necessity, there needs to be necessity in the universe. The first question to this which I would ask is "why" since there is no reason for an inherent purpose. The universe doesn't owe us any purpose, and there has yet to be a law stating "For every purpose there is an equal and opposite lack-of-purpose" since purpose isn't something like matter that needs antimatter or an action that gives an equal and opposite force in response. This is a composition fallacy in the sense that you apply the same requirements in scientific things to other things completely irrelevant to science. There is no reason why there needs to be a balance of necessity. Your fourth point: "The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way" This argument says that in order to achieve a standard of perfection, we need to have something perfectly perfect to compare things to. Or, maybe that's totally not true. Morality in many instances can be objective in the sense that we recognize appreciation towards kind actions and life being preferable to non life (otherwise there would be no way to evaluate morality). However, in many instances, morality is subjective and identified by society. When we identify something as morally wrong, it isn't because we have a perfect view of the world, it is because we identify the way they act as something we would never do. The only reason we hold imperfect views of ourselves is either because of more perfect views of others, or views of ourselves that were more perfect than whatever action caused the belief of imperfection. The other reason why your last claim is likely false is due to imperfections in our idea of perfection. Many view gay marriage as something imperfect due to what they view as immoral. I personally don't view gay marriage or homosexuality as immoral because I identify imperfection as external harm to another person, and I don't see the harm they do. I.E. I obtain morals that are different than yours, therefore perfection isn't a shared image (unlike a shared God would be) Your final point: "The Proof from Design" states that the formations that are on Earth are so perfect it had to have been created by an intelligent being. This is also an argument from incredulity fallacy. You say that something so perfect must have been designed and avoid natural possibilities. Oddly enough, all of the examples you bring are those explained by evolution. A bird has a wing because it was naturally selected to do so and that is a trait which pulled through the rest of the ecosystem. There is no reason to credit a god.