Argument for the Non-Existence of God

Thank you for the articulate response, DraggledBovid. “However, in proposition two my opponent began to go deeper into the idea of being, stating that God is a being. Hence, a definition of being became necessary.” Unfortunately, I don’t know what “go deeper into the idea of being” could possibly mean. Either my usage of the word in prop. 1 is consistent with prop. 2, or I’m using a different meaning then prop. 1. That’s it. But my opponent never charged me with equivocation. So I must be using the same meaning as prop. 1. As I underscored in my previous reply, my opponent challenged the word after having no trouble understanding its usage in prop. 1 How is this possible? Moreover, as I explained in R2, definitionism is an inadequate method of attacking a proof. My opponent never addressed this in the preceding response. Requesting a definition of being after understanding what is meant by being, is identical to asking, “what is the definition of a definition?” Also, as I have proved twice, my opponent knew what being meant before he began to challenge it, as is evident in his response to prop. 1 (see Round 1). The objection is thus without doubt unwarranted. “My opponent basically refuses to define being except by saying that we must understand "being" in the sense that people are "beings" and can interact with God in a personal way.” As I mentioned in my first response, the requirement my opponent makes for a definition is unwarranted, and exists possibly only due to the need for a definition of God, which is equally unwarranted. I’m certain my opponent understands what God means just as he understood what being meant in prop. 1, but ask for a definition regardless of this fact. This became evident when he implied, in the latter part of his response, creation, which I never mentioned in Round 1. This is clear evidence that my opponent understands what God means and requires a definition for no reason, just as if I were to require a definition of a definition. Above all, my opponent has failed to justify definitionism as a valid method of assessing the validity/soundness of this proof. Response to Objections 2-1 is covered above. “I have no idea what "greater" than that feels like, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and that I can't understand the possibility.” This is false merely because not knowing what it feels like is equivalent to not understanding. A “possibility” is an abstract thought (an imagination) of what the mind already has experience of and understands. Therefore, it’s incoherent to speak of “greater” because our minds can only conceive of possibilities based on experience. That is to say, any possibility we may have of “greater” is based on experience. But “greater” implies beyond experience. So a possibility of “greater” is an imagination beyond experience based on experience. Contradiction. “just like we understand the simplistic mental functions of ants” Understanding “mental functions” and understanding the experience of ants are too different things. We can only understand the experience of humans. Additionally, understanding “mental functions” is not independent of human experience. “but the point at which decay begins to occur isn't calculable” Not being calculable doesn’t suggest anything. We don’t have a complete picture of the universe, and many things are currently incalculable. That doesn’t denote science is justified to draw conclusions based on our present inability to calculate something. “Even if all known events have been caused in some way or another, that doesn't mean that all events are caused in some way or another.” I already explained my position on this, trying to clarify my opponent’s misunderstanding. I quote myself, “I do not declare "everything has a cause is a universal truth". I say that experience affords us with the fact that "all things in time have some cause", meaning we are reasonably justified to believe it.” “Induction is good for making "soft" rules, but we can never prove our findings beyond all doubt.” No scientific claim is beyond all doubt. I believe my opponent would not contest evidence regarding Evolution, which is not beyond all doubt, yet its application in medicine has been enormously helpful, or theories of physics and chemistry, for that matter, which afford us with technology all around. But those aren’t beyond all doubt either. “To me, having the quality of time apply to something means that the temporal characteristics are relevant to it and it is, in other words, in time.” The confusion arises from calling the universe a “thing.” The universe is not a “thing” but rather, space-time, matter-energy, weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational force. These are all qualities of what we call the universe. When we refer to things we refer to them as being in the universe, or part of the universe. But a horse is not a quality of the universe; the matter which makes up the horse is. Time is the measure of motion. It’s incoherent to say we can measure the motion of the universe, but on the contrary, it’s perfectly understandable to say we can measure the motion of a horse. “If one thing is omnipotent, then it can do anything, including creation of another omnipotent being.” If God is actuality, creating an omnipotent being would be creating actuality. But God cannot create actuality out of actuality because nothing would have been “created” (changed or be derivative of) since nothing could have possibly occurred given that both God and the “other” omnipotent being are the same thing i.e., both in actuality. For God to “create” means to take from actuality and put into potentiality; while potentiality attempts to become actuality (back to God). “If God can't contradict himself (or lie, which was conveniently left out), then God cannot do anything.” We do not conceive of illogical things. Thus it’s incoherent to speak of illogical things. Likewise, it’s incoherent to entertain whether God could conceive of illogical things, act upon them and the like—given that we are unable to speak about illogical things. How can we draw conclusions about things we can’t talk about? “Proof in general, however, is a higher standard.” “In other words, proof isn't just likeliness, it compels acceptance. It's proof. It's certainty.” Not in science and we have nice things like computers, cell phones, TVs, cameras, etc. If we are to accept my opponent’s reasoning here, we would never have any of those things because scientists would have never published any of their “proofs” because they are too weak to pass the “without any possible doubt” test. “My opponent basically strays from my point in the second response and goes to the argument about an impersonal God being useless, which is irrelevant to whether or not God can be demonstrated not to exist.” Insofar as God is understood through the experiences of human beings and is considered the origin of the universe and thus life itself, I hold that God will be viewed as personal or meaningful. A non-personal or non-meaningful God seems irrelevant of discussion. “This argument is the same as the second: that God must be perfect and all powerful and such, which is unwarranted and can be rejected on that basis.” As I mentioned in my first response to my opponent’s objections, “If we are talking about anything but an omnipotent God, then I do not think we are talking about God.” (R9-1) I look forward to reading my opponent’s responses.