God Does Not Exist

Negative CaseScience & The Great EnforcerI now concur -- for now. Although, "enforce" seems a little vague. What is this enforcer doing exactly?Attributes of God: Omnipotence"We form beliefs and understanding based on the evidence at hand. We can extrapolate from our limited findings to make assertions on situations we have not observed.We form beliefs and understanding based on the evidence at hand. We can extrapolate from our limited findings to make assertions on situations we have not observed."I understand how scientific proof works, however it is not a deduction. You must 'definitively' prove that the Great Enforcer is omnipotent. All Con has proposed, is that the great enforcer enforces all physical laws, it makes another ad hoc assumption. Hence, the hypothesis that this being is omnipotent is simply refuted by Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor gives simplicity precedence -- if two hypothesises are competing, the hypothesis with the least amount of ad hoc assumptions is a priori most likely. To extrapolate that this enforcer is definitely omnipotent with limited observation posits another ad hoc. Hence, the opposing hypothesis is deemed a priori most likely. "In this situation, we have seen without fail that whatever is at the root of laws' consistency, enforces that consistency on every observed object in existence. From that, we can extrapolate that its influence applies equally over those objects we have not observed, until otherwise disproven. In other words, it is appropriate to form a scientific belief that all objects in the universe are subject to these laws."I concur, but this is the furthest that the extrapolation extends to -- the great enforcer enforces laws on all objects. Hence, it is unwarranted to say that this enforcer is omnipotent, as we have not observed it create anything -- even if it enforces the rules does not mean that it created them viz. a police man enforces the law, but the police man did not necessarily establish that law. Moreover, the great enforcer has only been shown to be an enforcer, nothing else. I could equally say that Ronaldo is omnipotent, because he is talented."Something that has the power to force any object in existence to adhere to arbitrary rules is certainly all powerful."How so? It has not been demonstrated that it can do everything. It can force objects to adhere to rules, that's it.Attributes of God: OmniscienceI admit, the analogy I proposed was refuted, but the logic behind it has not. Since this enforcer has only been shown to enforce physical laws, it does not necessarily 'know' everything. Con's scientific proof only extends to it knowing everything about 'physical laws'. For example, if we observe a pack of wolves co-operating to capture prey, we can deduce that they can co-operate to tackle 'all' of their prey. However, saying that the great enforcer knows everything is like me asserting that those wolves know quantum mechanics. The qualities are not necessarily linked in any way, hence it is invalid to make that leap."I showed that the root of laws' consistency is transcendent, that it exists outside space-time."Why can't the enforcer exist within space-time? Why can't the enforcer enforce all physical laws within space-time? Con has not provided adequate justification for that claim. Affirmative CaseA1 Transcendent Entities Cannot "Exist""Although the argument is sound if you assume P1: "Exist" is temporal, it's a senseless argument, as that immediately makes P3 nonsensical. P3 states that God is outside-space time. By using the word 'is' as a synonym of 'exists', P3 becomes a contradiction. You've set the argument up to fail from the very beginning by choosing your definitions to do so. "This can be easily rectified, the third premise can be reiterated like so:P3: If God were to existHence, it is an 'If' statement. So I am not referring to an already existing God in the format."Even if you want to hold to this, you have not proven the truth of P1. Without that proof, it's just valid but not sound."I thought that it was axiomatic, but as commended: (1)Verbs have tenses -- "to exist" is a present tense, hence it is temporal since it is contingent upon time. "P5: God is omnipotent - has the power to do anythingP6: Since God has the power to do anything, God has the power to "exist" outside space-time, even in a situation of logical contradiction"I guess this argument relies upon the omnipotence paradox argument.A2 Eternalism"So, what caused the Arrow of Time? It could not have been created without another Arrow of Time, in which case, what caused that?"There would have to be an Arrow of Time for causality to happen. Without it, causality is incoherent. This point has not been addressed and Con presents a strawman to this argument."Alternatively, if the Arrow of Time has existed infinitely, then there's no contradiction in the creation of the universe, God-driven or otherwise. "If the Arrow of Time existed infinitely, it would render the definition of God incoherent, as the creator of the universe was an inherent requisite under this resolution... A3 Quantum SuperpositionI accept the refutations Con has presented. Well done Con. :)A3 Omnipotence Paradox"If God has unlimited power, and is the most superior, then God would be able to create a more powerful God without violating the definition of "God", as doing so without violating the definition is more powerful than doing so while violating it. In other words, if God is omnipotent, then God is not limited by logical contradictions."Con just presented the paradox it creates. It would cause a logical contradiction while doing that.A4 The Argument from Atemporal Minds"Premise two is unproven: "If God exists, God must be/have a mind, because knowledge is contingent upon a mind." One could argue that artificial intelligences posses knowledge, but they don't have minds."A mind can be defined as: "intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence." (2) Hence, anything that fulfills this definition has a mind. "Premise four is unproven: "Minds imply an interaction in time, since minds include processes." There's no proof that minds must have processes." Knowledge is contingent upon a mind (a point which Con did not refute), which is contingent upon intelligence (as shown by the definition). Intelligence requires processes, so therefore, a mind requires processes. Intelligence is defined as: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." (3) "To acquire" is contingent upon time, since it implies that something will get something in the future viz. to acquire something in a static place is incoherent. (1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...(3) Google "Define 'Intelligence'"