God Exists

Rebuttal:1. Argument for a personal cause: P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either (a) in the necessity of its own nature, or (b) in an external cause.P2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.How is P2 derived from P1? The universe may have a source but does that source need to be the source of all moral authority? Not necessarily. It can even be a yet undiscovered force, or a singularity that transcends existence. If God can self-create or transcend creation, so can a force. There needn't be any of the properties described in the definition of Round 1 for this force to exist. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe originated from a singularity [1], a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume [2]. According to the Big Bang, energy was absorbed from gravity inherent to existence (as God is, according to most theologists), and expanded into photons, that then contracted to form matter and antimatter. [3] [4] The source of the universe need not be an omnipotent, omniscient being that acts as the source of moral authority. Thus, P2 is completely illogical. 2. Argument for a designerComplexity is merely due to the structural aspects of a thermodynamic system. One of the primary structural aspects of a thermodynamic system (such as the universe) is the emergence of disorder within the order of the universe; the measure of this disorder is called entropy, and is merely a particle level rearrangement. Supernatural forces play no part in this.Arguments:1. The Omnipotence ParadoxIf a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions (all actions include hypothetical one; "all" even includes nonexistent, or incomprehensible actions, which, by the rules of absolute omnipotence, require the ability to perform the same by the omnipotent being objectively). Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do. [5] By this debate's definition of "omnipotence", the omnipotence referenced here is absolute omnipotence, meaning that there are no limits to the Supreme Being's omnipotence by the terms of this debate. Thus, omnipotence cannot exist.2. The Omniscience Paradox(1) If the Supreme Being foreknows of some event E, does E happen necessarily, and (2) if some event E is contingent, how can the Supreme Being foreknow E's occurrence? [6] [7] Thus, omniscience implies the lack of contingency, and thus, by the definition of the existence of a Supreme Being, means everything is definite. This definitiveness is proof of the universe being completely entwined by order. But according to the thermodynamic measure of entropy, there is more than one way in which a thermodynamic system (eg: a region of the universe) may be arranged. [8] [9] This arrangement is variable, yet constant in the fact that the varied arrangements may coexist. Thus, there is, by definition, disorder in the universe. [8] If there is disorder, then only one hypothesis of the possibilities of entropy may be predestined, and not more. Thus, foreknowing all the possibilities is impossible. Therefore, omniscience does not exist. 3. Miracles"Miracle" is defined as "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency." [10] Miracles are (a) deemed possible and necessary by the laws of omnipotence, and (b) essential attributes of the Supreme Being. But, they are inexplicable by the laws of physics and have no proof to them. Therefore, if the Supreme Being is unable to perform any supernatural action, then he/she may not be considered as the Supreme Being. 4. Russell's TeapotRussell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. [11] This analogy also now allows me, having presented the logical rationales for the nonexistence of a Supreme Being, to shift the burden of proof to Pro and theism.The arguments are derived from my own arguments in a former debate: http://www.debate.org...Sources:[1] A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://gotejas.com...; Posts "God Does Not Play Dice With The Universe", "What Is Nothing?" and "E Pluribus Unum".[5] Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74–79 [6] "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.[7] Viney, Donald Wayne (Spring 1989). "Does Omniscience Imply Foreknowledge? Craig on Hartshorneby". Process Studies (Center for Process Studies) 18 (1): 30–37.[8] "Carnot, Sadi (1796–1832)". Wolfram Research. 2007.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] Oxford Dictionary of English, American Edition (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) [11] http://en.wikipedia.org...;