God does not exist

If you have taken the time to read this much, then please vote so that your time will not have been in vain. :-)I also want to thank Narmak for putting so much effort into this debate. Originally, Pro made three arguments against the existence of God. In the last round, he added a fourth. I'm going to deal with the fourth argument first. IV. Argument from logical impossibility1. If an all powerful God exists, then he can create square circles.2. Square circles cannot be created.3. Therefore, an all powerful God does not exist. The first premise is false. Theologians define omnipotence as the ability to do all things logically possible, so it does not include the ability to engage in logical absurdity. Suppose we insist that an all powerful God could engage in logical absurdity. Then the second premise would be false since an all powerful God could create square circles. Either way, this argument fails. I. The argument from the first law of thermodynamics. If you'll recall, I responded to this argument in two ways--by showing that the first law of thermodynamics does not act as a metaphysical straight jacket on reality, and by giving three arguments for why the universe had a beginning. A. Can the first law be violated? Pro continues to ignore my argument and merely assert that the first law cannot be violated. But this time, he compares violating the first law with creating a square circle. Apparently, he thinks the first law is a logical law or that violating it entails a logical contradiction. But the first law is a physical law, not a logical law, so his argument is fallacious. B. Argument from the second law of thermodynamicsI explained why the second law of thermodynamics entails that the universe had a beginning. Pro's response is woefully inadequate. He thinks that interchangeability of matter and energy explains why the universe hasn't reached thermodynamic equilibrium yet. But that observation is irrelevant. As I said before, even if the universe begins with zero entropy, it will reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time, regardless of how much matter and energy there is. It follows inescapably, that given an infinite amount of time, it will have already reached equilibrium, and that given a beginnnigless universe, there is no point in the finite past in which it will not have already reached equilibrium. Pro also suggests that we live in an oscillating universe, which explains why the universe hasn't reached equilibrium. But that argument is fallacious for two reasons. First, because we live in an open universe, not an oscillating universe, which is evident in the fact that the expansion of the universe is speeding up rather than slowing down. Second, oscillating models suffer from the effects of the second law of thermodynamics as well and cannot be infinite in the past. C. The impossibility of an actual infinite. Pro has ignored this argument throughout this debate. D. The impossibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition. Pro has ignored this argument throughout the debate. Both this argument and the one before it prove that the universe had a beginning, which disproves one of the premises in his first argument against the existence of God. II. The impossibility of a timeless being. Pro attempted to defend his premise that a timeless being cannot exist by saying that one can ask the question of any being, "When did it exist? " If there is a timeless being, then there is no answer to the question. I said the mere fact that you can answer a question doesn't have any ontological implications. The fact that I can ask, "When did God exist? " no more implies that God exists in time than asking, "How much does blue weigh" implies that the color blue has weight. Pro admits that blue has no weight, but then contradicted himself, saying, "There is no question that doesn't [sic] have an answer. "I claimed that since the laws of logic can and do exist in a state of timelessness that timeless existence is possibity. Pro gave up trying to refute that point, so this argument stands unrefuted. Since Pro has failed to show why a timeless being is impossible, his second argument against God fails. III. The impossibility of an immaterial being having causal influence over the material world. Pro claimed that since God is not made up of energy, he cannot impart energy on the physical world so as to have causal influence in it. I gave two ways that God could have causal influence in the physical world even though he's not made of energy, and I also gave two reasons to think the mind is an immaterial entity that has causal influence over the brain. A. God is not made of energy. I gave two responses:1. God could create energy. Pro said this would violate the first law of thermodynamics. I already responded above.2. God could use energy that already exists. Pro ignored this argument. B. The argument for an immaterial mind from intentional action. Pro concedes that metal states influence behavior but insists that mental state are brain states. He says that "our brains can WEIGH decisions…" I responded with the indiscernibility of identicals:C. The argument from the indiscernibility of identicals. If there is any property not shared between our brains and our minds, then our minds are not our brains. Pro says diseases can cause people to act differently and that "according to con this would be impossible seeing as the brain and mind are not the same thing. " But he is mistaken. I do not say that is impossible. Rather, I explain it by saying that there is causal interaction between the mind and the brain. The fact that parasites in the brain affect our mental states only shows causation between the two, not that they are the same thing. Pro says that although he can create a game in which a character makes choices, that doesn't mean the computer has a mind distinct from the hardware. This analogy fails because computers do not have minds at all, and they don't have volition. I pointed out that the brain is open to third person observation, but the mind is only open to first person observation. Pro responded by saying the brain is "extremely complicated" and that for all we know, the mind may be open to third person observation. But all one need do to see that this is false is to reflect on the subjective nature of perception to realize that this is impossible. Emotion can only be apprehended in the first person because it's a subjective experience. I also pointed out that one can have a perception (such as a green sweater) in the mind, while there is no such perception in the brain (i. e. there is no green sweater in the brain). Pro's response suffers from irrelevance. He says that the statement makes no sense and that we can only dream of things that we have experienced. That has nothing to do with my argument. Since a mental state can have the property of greenness even though the brain does not have the property of greenness shows that the mind is not the brain. In substance dualism, the direction of causation goes both ways. The brain has causal influence over the mind, which is what enables us to see. Our minds have causal influence over the brain, which allows us to act intentionally. None of these causal interactions are the brain and the mind the same thing. Since the mind is an immaterial substance that has causal influence over the material brain, Pro's third argument against God fails. ConclusionAs I pointed out in the first round, the burden of proof was on Pro to show that God does not exist. Pro gave four arguments against the existence of God. I answered each one, showing that he has failed to carry the burden of proof. There were a few of my arguments that Pro never responded to. Over all, I think it's clear that Pro's arguments have failed to show that God does not exist. Thank you for coming to tonight's debate, and please vote. And thank you, Narmak, for an engaging debate on an interesting topic.