The existence of God

I won't be putting forward any positive arguments to prove the non-existence of God as Pro is the one affirming and therefore has the burden of proof. I will simply be rebutting. I'd like to begin by addressing Pro's opening question on defence/evidence for atheism. Atheism, as I see it, is simply a stance which states that there are no compelling proofs or arguments for the existence of God, therefore I do not believe in him. You shouldn't need to prove the non-existence of him as you can never prove the non-existence of anything, you can't disprove the tooth fairy or Santa Claus for example. The Cosmological Argument The first problem with the Cosmological argument is that it presupposes that time is linear. This may or may not be true, if it is not true then the cosmological argument is worthless. If it is circular for example then there is no need for a God, as 'something' (could be the big bang, who knows) is the first and last thing that happens, before time begins again. However, if time is linear then the problem arises of who or what created God. No matter how high of a being God is, he must have thoughts, or actions, or whatever divine way you'd like to describe it. For example he created the universe, this is an action performed by him on a linear time line, therefore he must be in time, so to say, because his actions can be linked to the universe's sequence of events. Therefore, if we trace back his (let's call them actions), then eventually we have to find a first 'action' and we're stuck with the sticky problem of where God originated. A linear time line defeats God just as much as a circular one renders him superfluous. In this way, the cosmological argument contains its own refutations, it states that all things must have a cause, yet it labels God with the attribute of eternality, therefore debunking itself. Also, let's not forget that God must be MUCH more complicated than the universe he created, so coming to a conclusion of where he came from is all the harder! Why don't we reduce the problem and not jump to any God conclusions. The second problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it takes advantage of a gap in scientific knowledge, this being the origin of our Cosmos, and then seizes upon it with an automatic “See! It can't be explained! Therefore God must've done it. ” This answer is jumped to without the providing of any evidence, it should simply be labelled with a logical “I don't know. ” Think about it this way, 200 years ago this would've been done when we considered the wealth and depth of natural life around us, with such suited environments. The religious conclusion was to point to this world that was seemingly so perfectly designed with it's life in mind and claim it as proof for a creator. Then Darwin came along and suddenly it became clear that life adapted to the environment, a much more elegant, logical explanation, and one that was above all proved with evidence. It would be infantile to make the same mistake about the origin of the universe. Our grounding in earth-based logic reduces our imaginations to parochial explanations such as “this is complicated, therefore it must have an intelligent creator. ” With our poorly evolved minds and limited scientific knowledge there's a good chance the explanation for our universe is beyond our capability to even comprehend. Finally, can something come from nothing? It most certainly can. “Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations. "” (1) “According to quantum theory, the vacuum (of space) contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain 'fluctuations,' transitions between something and nothing in which potential existence can be transformed into real existence by the addition of energy. ” (2) The reason we don't see them is because they are tiny and usually cancel each other out, however with the help of a particle accelerator this matter can be converted into real particles, with the addition of the energy it needs. (2) Even if you ignore the evidence physicists are putting forward about quantum fluctuations, the ex nihilo argument works just as well with God. If something can't come from nothing then is God a nothing? To be anything he would have to be a something, so where did he come from? TAG The main problem with this argument is your erroneous “laws of logic. ” Primarily because it fails to show the difference between these “laws of logic” and what they actually refer to. The “laws of logic” are not equal to what they describe, they are simply statements which refer to certain necessary truths about the nature of existence/reality. But these descriptions are not equal to the truths which they describe, so these “laws” are not what is non-contingent, transcendent etc. What I'm saying may seem obvious, but bear with me. An example could be, a description of a house is just a description, not actually the house which it describes. The description is just language. TAG argues that laws of logic are conceptual by nature, that they are thoughts and must depend on a mind, but it is misleading because these laws which it describes are nothing more than descriptions themselves. All these “laws” refer to is the consistency of existence, and the facts regarding it. The “laws” of non-contradiction/identity are simply properties of existence. .. When a pen exists, it is that pen, it is not a pencil, this is due to the facts of its existence. So the law of identity, for example, is simply a description of the fact of identity. Imagine a world where just a triangle exists, since there are no minds on this world the “law of identity” cannot exist since there is no one to think about it, yet the fact of the triangle's existence and identity remains. Thanks for reading, I look forward to your response. Sources (1) . http://www.astrosociety.org... (2) . http://www.nytimes.com...