God Does Not Exist

Negative CaseScience & The Great EnforcerI have been enlightened. It turns out this argument is known as the "Natural Law Argument", which normally uses this syllogism: "p1. There are natural laws which govern the universe p2. All laws have a law giver c1. That law giver is God" I will now present why this argument is fallacious. P1. This is false, as it equivocates the definition of "law". A physical law is not a law like our democratic laws... Physical laws are not physical entities that something can enforce. This in turn creates a reification fallacy.P2. Philosopher Edwin Bertrand states: "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary." (1) C. This argument is a non-sequitur, even if the first two premises are sound, as it just creates a god of the gaps argument, because there might be another cause for natural laws. Attributes of God: Omnipotence"I don't understand what part of my argument is 'ad hoc', or 'after the fact'. I've been arguing this from the beginning"Your hypothesis ads an ad hoc assumption. An ad hoc assumption is something added to an argument to save it from falsity. Hence, the hypothesis with the least ad hoc assumptions (in this case, the opposing hypothesis) is a priori most likely -- according to Occam's Razor.From here I need not refute Con's logical argument as it I have already refuted the natural law argument. "I agree that we cannot say whether the enforcer created the rules. Limitations of science prevent us from determining that."Hence, we cannot assume that it is omnipotent. Attributes of God: Omniscience"The problem here is that you're defining knowledge using a human understanding of it, not in a universal sense. You might say that the enforcer doesn't 'know' that a person is sad. Yet, 'sad' is a human concept. 'Sad' doesn't truly exist, just as 'red' or 'blue' doesn't truly exist. Colors are simply wavelengths of light. Emotions are simply neurological states. We may experience 'sad', but all that really exists is the chemical and electrical signals in our brains."I know -- non-cognitivism. This argument suffers the same fate as the omnipotence one -- whether I can list an objective feature that the universe has shown this enforcer not to know. Occam's Razor simply refutes this leap.Attributes of God: Transcendence"I've already explained that the enforcer has been shown to exert its power throughout all of time and all of space, and enforces laws that influence and change time and space. In order to be able to enforce these laws universally, it cannot be subject to the changes in time and space that occur when these laws are enforced."How so? If we apply that logic, a builder cannot enter a house after one creates it.Affirmative CaseA2 Eternalism"Pro's argument suffers from the same problems as the argument from first cause. If there must be an Arrow of Time for causality to happen, then what created that Arrow of Time? There are four possible answers to that question:1) Something created that Arrow of Time in a situation without an Arrow of Time- Pro has already argued that this is impossible2) Something created that Arrow of Time in a situation where there was another Arrow of Time- If this is the case, then the next question is, what created the earlier Arrow of Time? Either it reduces to option 1, or the question remains unanswered as it continually takes option 2 (this option) ad infinitum. 3) The Arrow of Time was not created, and exists without cause- If the Arrow of Time has existed infinitely, then there is no contradiction to the creation of the rest of the universe using that Arrow of Time for causality4) The Arrow of Time is not actually required for there to be causality"I don't realise how this argument suffers problems... I state that causality is incoherent without time. To state "then what caused the arrow of time to exist?" is completely irrelevant. For example, if I simply propose a simple law: the conservation of energy -- that energy cannot be created or destroyed, just because we do not know what created that energy ex nihilio, does not mean that the law itself is false. Hence, Con's propositions are strawmans. We have no reason to believe that the arrow of time needs a cause. Every one of Con's four propositions listed, is synthesized under the pretense that everything needs a reason to exist. This is wholly intuitive and lacks actual objectivity. If Con would like to justify that everything that exists must have a cause, he may do so. Until that occurs, what created the time's arrow is completely irrelevant."Pro should either answer the question of what created the Arrow of Time, or explain why my argument offers no value to the discussion."So if you state the conservation of energy law, you must also prove what created the energy ex nihilio? This is moving the goalposts, I need not do that at all."This would be true unless the Arrow of Time were God (or a part of God). If God were the Arrow of Time, and existed infinitely, then God could create the universe without contradiction."That's also question begging and if that's the case, then God is not transcendent, ergo refuting the definition provided. The universe is defined as "all space-time, matter and energy as a whole", so to state that God 'is time' in a timeless place is metaphysically impossible.A3-1 Quantum Superposition"Thanks. It was a neat theory."It was neatly refuted as well.A3-2 Omnipotence ParadoxI attack my opponents second premise:"Something that is not limited is more powerful than something that is limited"Let's say that there is a universe with only a rock, and all the physical laws needed to support a rock are present. Now let's say that there is our universe, which has all the physical laws need to support human life. In the rock universe, Newton's law: F=ma wouldn't necessarily exist... If there was a universe with just a rock, that rock would not move unless a force is acted upon it. This is just an example, that we would have more physical limitations than a rock, and are still able to do 'more things' than that rock. Hence, this premise isn't valid.A4 The Argument from Atemporal Minds"Although Pro has supplied a definition, Pro still has not proven that God must have a mind."I did: "Knowledge is contingent upon a mind (a point which Con did not refute)". I will elaborate: knowledge is defined as "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition"(2) and intelligence is contingent upon knowledge as its definition is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills", and intelligence is contingent upon a mind as a mind is defined as "intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence." Hence, I have created a casual link of contingency."Knowledge is not contingent upon a mind. A library contains much knowledge, but has no mind."This is only a metaphor. Libraries are not objectively knowledgeable.(1) http://www.users.drew.edu...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...