The Existence of God

Thanks. Cosmological Arguments Pro gives different versions of the Cosmological argument. I know the sentience argument technically isn't, but it ties together; same with the change argument. The first premise of the cosmological arguments is disputed and is far from undeniable. Quantum mechanics has put the premise in question. Under the mainstream interpretations of quantum physics, quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause. “ Although it would seem impossible that a particle could materialize from nothing—not even from energy—it so happens that no laws of physics are violated...” [1] “In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.” [2] What I'm arguing here is not that quantum mechanics puts an absolute end to premise one, but that premise one isn't justified. Sentience One problem with this is, things like snow flake change by natural means. Other things like Crystal come naturally. Premise 1 is completely false, a mind isn’t needed in the creation of these things. Natural Cause Pro argues against a natural cause (what I mean by natural in talking about before the universe is non-sentient). Pro gives us 2 reasons to think it can't be a natural cause and must be a being. 1. Something must have chosen to bring the universe into existence. 2. Problem of infinity, the cause must always create. 1. Why can't this natural cause be going through different complex reactions infinity? There would be no need for a choice because the universe would be a result of one reaction. 2. Perhaps the thing still does exist. The thing could be creating universes still. It's still possible for the cause to have been destroyed in the creation of the Universe. Furthermore, just because the natural causes we think of don't fit, this doesn't mean sentience was the cause. This would be an argument from ignorance. This leads us into the next problem. Epistemological Issue Your arguments attempt to inquire about the unknown. Time, space, and matter as we know it began at the Big Bang. What was before the Big Bang, we’re completely in the dark about. We can only know what was at the starting point of the Big Bang. We don’t know if time, space, and matter were existing before the Big Bang, only that they were brought about in our Universe by the Big Bang. We have no idea what was before, to inquire what was, is simply meaningless. Our understanding is because of the Universe around us. We can reason because we observe the Universe around us and come up with things like causality. However, to apply our understanding outside the Universe, by using the understanding that we obtained by the Universe itself would be fallacious. Ponder this analogy. In my room there’s a door, behind this door is a portal into another dimension. In this dimension there can be anything, things which we have no understanding of, things which are not possible in this world, things we could never conceive. There could be another set of laws, or they could be the same as ours. Is it really reasonable to make a positive claim of what’s in that dimension? I don’t think so. One can make arguments for what exists in it, but the conclusion can never be rationally accepted and such tasks would be useless since we’re ignorant of what’s in there. We can have inquire what’s in it, but we can never claim for sure what’s in there, without going in. Any claim is just as possible as another, since inside the dimension is meaningless to us. Now, this dimension is before the universe. This debating over the cause is the same as debating what’s in the dimension. Claiming that a personal being caused it can’t be accepted, since there could be something that fits these attributes and not be personal. It's simply not a coherent concept. Morality Pro gives us the moral argument, however it's incomplete. Pro says without objective morality, there's subjective morality. Pro rejects subjective morality on the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences. Just because you wouldn't like it doesn't mean it's false. In order for Pro's argument to be complete, he must prove objective morality exists. He hasn't done this. I do think there is objective morality and I believe secular ethics are better than religious ethics. Morality is objective because we evaluate actions and the laws of nature to come up with morality. We know that fire is hot, so why is it wrong to burn someone? Because as humans we all have an objective instinct to survive. As social creatures it's best to be moral to survive. If we didn't care about punishing murders or crying babies on the floor, the human race would have died out long ago. I don't want to live in a place that allows murderers to go free, thus I want to live in a place that doesn't allow murder. Meaning I too must follow the rules. There's various problems with the idea that God sends down morality. For one, Pro is using this as an argument for the existence of God. So what do you mean by morality? If morality is what God commands, then the argument is circular. Since your argument is “Objective morality exists, therefore God exists” but morality refers to God, making you commit the fallacy of begging the question. If morality doesn't include a God, then it can never reach God as a conclusion. It would make Pro give a secular account of morality destroying his own case. The moral argument must include and not include God, a logical impossibility, meaning the moral argument fails. Another problem was pointed out by a philosopher by the name of Socrates. "Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?" If the first is true, then there's an objective standard of morality above God. If the second is true, then morality is just might makes right, it would make good arbitrary to what God commands. Because I said So I don't have space to post my full response, but I will ask you this. If you're always right, then is the statement “This statement is false” true? My arguments. Problem of evil 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. 2. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. 3. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 4. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 5. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 6. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. 7. Evil exists (logical contradiction). C. God doesn't exist. Argument from Temporal Minds This argument comes from DDO user Rational_Thinker1991 in one of his debates [3]. 1. If God exists he is/ has a functioning atemporal mind 2. Mental processing is required for a functioning mind 3. Temporal duration is required for processing 4. A functioning atemporal mind cannot exist C. God does not exist P1 Pro has said this himself. It's the God of classical theism. P2 This is self evident. It's what makes a mind, a mind. P3 “A process requires an order of events with a series of steps; and thus a change from state ‘A’ to state ‘B’. This change means that a process at its most generic metric necessitates some sort of temporal emergence in order for a transition of states to be feasible. This is a widely accepted philosophical principle: “So construed, the notion of change is obviously bound up with notions of cause, time and motion” - Change and Inconsistency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [4] “Change is intimately bound up with time.” – What is philosophy? (University of Florida) [5]”- Rational_Thinker1991 P4 Follows from above. [1] http://www.debate.org...