The God Debate

Thanks to my opponent for allowing me the privledge of conceding my last round, Let me recommend to never participate in 2 debates during a working schedule.. It will not end well *wink wink..I will be using my 5th round 'concluding remarks' as grounds for my last rebuttal as suggested by my opponent, on that note, lets begin:No Stative time = No God? Let me first address that my opponent gave a wonderful demonstration of our current understanding of quantum fluctuations and how that relates to our current models of Big Bang cosmology. The conclusion however is what baffles me, let me sum it up for this section in this assertion: “creation is a temporal process, contingent on stative time, and at [+0,-0] there was no stative time or the passage thereof, because there was no stative space; temporal processes like creation are nonsensical without stative time.” Now I’m interested, what makes my opponent think that “stative time” presupposes causality? Why cannot one timeless entity (say a #) depend timelessly for its existence on another timeless entity? Why could not God sustain a number in a timeless existence? I’m interested to hear why it is impossible. When we look at the entire sphere of causality, we see that there are two types: temporal and logical. Immanuel Kant gives a prime example of logical causality, imagine a heavy ball resting on a cushion from eternity past, the physical proximity of the ball and cushion will form a concave depression (indentation) in the cushion that is co-eternal with the ball and cushion... Now if I may ask... What is the cause of this concavity? The ball nor the cushion has temporal priority over the other.. In my opponents view, there cannot be a cause for this causality (since neither is temporarily prior), this just simply isn’t a valid conclusion however, as a contingent property, the concavity of the cushion begs for a causal explanation! We then have an example of a cause that does not precede its effect in time or rather, in a different manner: logically. If the ball did not exist, the concavity of the cushion would not exist. The ball is logically prior to the concavity, though not temporally prior to it. This is a great example in displaying how the concept of causation is logically coherent outside the bound of a temporal framework. My opponent is falsely concluding that there is only one form of causation (temporally bound) which the atheist philosopher Alexander Pruss concludes is ‘unconvincing’ while remarking: “apart from full or partial reductions of the notion of causation to something like Humean regularity and temporal precedence, …there is [not] much reason to suppose that the cause of a temporal effect must even be in time.” My opponent states further: “Therefore, a creator of the universe cannot be, because there is no creator of a universe that wasn't created.” Let’s note that the given situation above is a great example of “simultaneous causation” Law of Causality - “Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause” http://plato.stanford.edu... Immanuel Kant further simplifies this idea in his book, The Critique of Pure Reason: All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect… The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena…applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous” (Kant, 1787, I.3.3.2.3.3, emp. added). A further examination of a wide variety of events in our experience will show the reality of simultaneous causation and the logical prevalence of a cause occurring simultaneously with its effect… This ultimately shows how my opponent rejecting the existence of a Creator because“creation is a temporal process, contingent on stative time” is false since the effect of the universe could occur simultaneously with its causal activity Overall, my opponent will need to show how it is impossible for causation to occur (either logically or simultaneously) outside the bounds of temporal necessity which we have not seen so far. Issues with Omnipotence:Here my friends is where the debate begins to rely heavily on definitions... The definition my opponent provided for "omnipotent" IS inherently contradictory.. For how can an entity who is able to do 'all things' be limited according to this definition? I will display in this section however, that following the same principle laws of logic denounce this 'definition' entirely as purely ridiculous Definition of nature: "The basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it"http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Now, omnipotence is not independent of God's nature but rather, is an inherent quality whereby his attributes must operate within that nature. This follows logically since having a human nature, I cannot run faster than a cheetah, my human nature restricts it. So too with God as His omnipotence is characteristic of 'who' He is, therefore showing how God can only do things that are in harmony with His nature. Here I will respond to my opponents alleged paradox's according to this principle: (1) Now remember that the given definition states that God is noxiously eternal, perfectly free, etc.. Meaning that that He must exist due to a necessity of His own nature rather then being a contingent property.. Therefore God cannot 'destroy itself' because He must exist.(2) God cannot create problems He cannot solve because that is a direct violation of his omniscience, for how can an all knowing being and not know something? (3) God cannot act unwillingly because again, this lies as a contradiction to his omniscience, how can a being who knows all unwillingly act? (4). God cannot 'create things more powerful then himself' because He is the Greatest Conceivable Being.. The famous creator of the ontological argument, Anselm, remarks: "if you could imagine a being greater then God then that would be God!".. Again, creating something 'more powerful then Himself' is another violation of His essential nature(5), God cannot 'inquire about things it cannot do'.. Well I think you get the point, it is a violation His nature. So when my atheist friends adopt a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence without logically tracing out its implications, what follows is the supposed 'omnipotence paradox's that are not adequate in their explanatory scope.. This is why the vast, vast amount of theologians have adopted a more logically sound definition of omnipotence... "having unlimited power and authority of that which is not contradictory to His own nature" Issues with Omni-benevolence: Now in this section, my opponent is using the infamous “problem of evil” to show how an omnibenevolent and omnipotent conception of God is explicitly contradictory. The issue is that my atheist friend needs to do a-lot more to show that these attributes are logically inconsistent… My opponent seems to making 2 assumptions: (1). If God is omnipotent then he can create any world that he desires” (2). If God is omnibenevolent then he prefers a world without evil over a world with evil Now, the atheist needs to show that these assumptions are necessarily true in order for the argument to constitute evidence against the existence of God. And as the renown Alvin Plantinga argues, the possibility that humans have free will make both assumptions (1-2) not necessarily correct. Now for assumption (1), if free will is a possibility then it is false that an omnipotent God can logically create any world that he desires (remember, omnipotent entities cannot perform illogical actions) as it is logically impossible to force somebody to freely choose something.. Lets note that this implies certain worlds that are 'possible' which God is incapable of creating, Philosophers say that such worlds are not feasible for God. so the first assumption made by my opponent is not necessarily true Lets also note that in every feasible world - in which God creates free agents - some of these creatures can and will choose evil. Thus it is possible that every world feasibly within Gods grasp, which contains free creatures, is a reality with evil and sin therefore displaying the inadequacy of the (1) premiseAs for the (2) assumption, 'God preferring without evil over a world with evil' is not necessarily true since God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the suffering in the world - for some overarching end. After all, we all understand that withholding pleasures and suffering for a time will produce a better result.. Why not so with the Greatest Conceivable Being? Consequently, the second assumption is again not valid. Overall, my opponent will need to show that either of the assumptions are necessarily true, which is a MUST to sustain the claim that the omni-features of God are logically incoherent. Good luck trying to carry that burden my friend. Conclusion:Here are the main takeaways from the first rebuttal period: 1). Causation is not bound by a temporal framework2). Omnipotence does not prove an explicit contradiction when understood correctly 3). the 'problem of evil' does not pose a neccisary threat to a theistic worldview I look forward to my opponents further rebuttals. Back to ConSources:1). http://www.reasonablefaith.org...2). http://www.apologeticspress.org...