Argument for the Non-Existence of God

My opponent's biblical references in the justifications of assumptions lead me to believe that we're considering a purely biblical interpretation of God, which is acceptable to me although not strictly relevant as it pertains to much of the logical structure above. This round, I'll first address my opponent's arguments and the logical flaws that I see in the proof offered. Then, I will make my own argument that a successful proof of the non-existence of God cannot exist. Let's get started:Assumption 01) If a being is thinking, then its thoughts must exist in time. Granted; insofar as a being is thinking (present tense), its thoughts also exist (present tense) and can be interpreted temporally. Assumption 02) If God exists, then God is a being. In response to this argument, the word "being" needs to be defined. According to Merriam-Webster's [1], it most commonly refers to:"1. a) the quality or state of having existence. "If this is the definition to which my opponent refers, then I obviously grant assumption 02, which can then be simplified to "if God exists, then God exists," which is obviously the case. However, I reserve the right to modify my response to this assumption later if my opponent interprets "being" differently. Objection 02-01) My opponent says in their defense of this assumption that God does not deserve worship if s/he is only a "force. " However, this is extratopical: we are arguing over whether or not it can be demonstrated that God does not exist, not whether or not God deserves worship. This defense is irrelevant. Objection 02-01-01) The argument that a force does not deserve worship is unwarranted in my opponent's defense. Assumption 03) If God is a being, then God has thoughts. Objection 03-01) Per my response to assumption 02, all "being" means is "existent. " Not all existent things necessarily have thoughts, so this assumption is unfounded. I would like to note here that a Judeochristian interpretation of "God" would lead to a granting of this assumption, but I'm going to leave this objection up until that's clarified. Objection 03-02) My opponent says in their first defense of this assumption that God is pointless without thoughts. However, this is extratopical: we are arguing over whether or not it can be demonstrated that God does not exist, not whether or not God is pointless. This defense is irrelevant. Objection 03-03) My opponent says in their second defense of this assumption that God is lesser and lacking intelligence without thoughts. However, this is extratopical: we are arguing over whether or not it can be demonstrated that God does not exist, not whether or not God is intelligent. This defense is irrelevant. Objection 03-03-01) The argument that God is "lesser" without thoughts is unwarranted. Perhaps God has something greater than intelligence and thoughts. For example, ants cannot conceive of the type of intelligence that humans have; it is a totally separate plane. Perhaps God is "above" beings like humans. Assumption 04) If God exists, then God has thoughts. If all of the previous assumptions are correct, then this assumption follows logically. Objection 04-01) However, insofar as objection 03-01 stands, we don't know that God has thoughts. Objection 04-01-01) I think my opponent's justifications are mislabeled: the assumption 04 defense seems to refer to causes, which become relevant in assumption 06. Hence, I will assume that the final defense, which is labeled a response to assumptions 05 and 06, actually refers to 04 and 06. In that event, my response is covered in objection 04-01. Assumption 05) If God exists, then God exists in time. Granted. Assumption 06) If something is in time, then it must be caused. I'll group this assumption with the defense mentioned in objection 04-01-01: "[t]here is no record of such events that exist in time but are not caused. Experience tells us causal relations happen only in time. If there is such a thing, the one making the claim has the burden of proof[. ]"I'll also group it with:Assumption 07) If God exists, then God must be caused. Objection 06/7-01) Some events, such as radioactive decay, have no clear "cause. " While inductive reasoning generally points in a deterministic direction, some events are inconsistent with this viewpoint of cause and effect. Objection 06/7-01-01) Ironically, the universe is a good example. While these are only some hypotheses, it is possible that the universe is an eternal cycle with no temporal beginning or end [2], or that our universe perpetually collides with a mirror universe, creating a new set of universes [3]. This does not prove that God does not exist; these are merely ideas that allow for a universe without a first cause, so God could lack a first cause by the same token. Assumption 08) If God is caused, then God is not omnipotent. Objection 08-01) This assumption is unwarranted. My assumption is that the thinking is that an omnipotent God is the "greatest," but there is no reasoning offered for why a "caused" God could not be the "greatest," whatever that means. Assumption 09) If God is not omnipotent, then God does not exist. Objection 09-01) I'm assuming that this is a reference to the biblical God. If it's just a reference to a generic God figure, I would say that there is no reason that such a figure would need to be omnipotent. Moreover, I would actually argue that the Bible doesn't claim that God is omnipotent. Objection 09-01-01) 2 Timothy 2:13 [4] - "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. "If God cannot deny himself, then he lacks a capability and is not omnipotent. Objection 09-01-02) Titus 1:2 [5] - "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began. "If God cannot lie, then he lacks a capability and is not omnipotent. Assumption 10) If God is caused, then God does not exist. I'll group this assumption with:Assumption 11) Therefore, If God exists, then God does not exist. If the previous three assumptions are correct, then these assumptions follow logically. Objection 10/11-01) However, insofar as my objections stand, these are invalid conclusions. To sum up, there are a number of key issues. First, my opponent ascribes a couple of characteristics to God needlessly, such as the ability to think and omnipotence. Second and more fundamentally, my opponent assumes that everything has a cause, which is not a universal truth. Finally, my opponent puts these together to argue that something omnipotent cannot be caused, relying on several already flawed premises. Now I'll get onto my own argument that a proof of the non-existence of God cannot be logically sound. Meta-objection 01) The core of the issue in a proof of the non-existence of anything is that "proof" is a loaded word. Proving something is not as simple as searching for it and not finding it; proof refers to establishment of absolute certainty of a claim beyond any doubt [6]. With respect to the claim that a generic God exists, this is impossible: the claim of a "God" or creator of the universe, most fundamentally, is too nebulous. If the universe is shown to be created otherwise, then maybe God created what created the universe, and so on. A generic God is impossible to disprove. My opponent attempts to get around this by ascribing traditionally Judeochristian characteristics to God; however, it not being clarified that we speak only of that God (and, moreover, the proof being invalid), I urge a Con vote. I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] "Being. " Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n. d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012. [2] Seife, Charles, 2002. Eternal-universe idea comes full circle. Science 296: 639. [3] Steinhardt, PJ and N. Turok, 2002. A cyclic model of the universe. Science 296: 1436-1439. [4] 2 Timothy. Bible Gateway. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012. [5] Titus. Bible Gateway. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012. [6] "Proof. " Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n. d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.