God Exists

I thank creationtruth for accepting. I will present my case in this round and rebut my opponent’s case in the next in accordance with the debate structure.C1) Non-Cognitivism of GreatnessGreatness is a purely subjective property, which entails a relative understanding according to what is “great” according to each line of perception. All subjective properties require a standard to describe the level of that property.For example, there is a universe with a single pencil and nothing else. In such a universe, you cannot say the pencil is ‘small’, as there is no definition of ‘small’ without anything else to measure against, i.e. something larger, so that one knows this is ‘smaller’. Thus, such a property requires a standard.So what is the standard to God’s greatness? It is rationally intuitive to think that the standard is:a) Internal to Godb) External to GodA standard being internal to God begs the question, as it assumes God’s existence, which is what I am attacking. A standard external to God contradicts his position as transcendent to the universe. Thus, with no standard to match up against, a great God’s existence is incoherent.To negate this without ad hoc hypotheses, my opponent has to prove that greatness is an objective property, which would require a highly specific definition of ‘greatness’. Greatness is the quality of being ‘great’, which is defined as: “of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above average”, or “of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average.” [1] What is the supposed mark of ‘average’ here? It is logically incoherent to measure greatness objectively, thus the qualities of greatness and transcendence will contradict each other if together.To phrase it in a different structure:P1: Greatness is a subjective property.P2: Subjective properties require standards of that property.C1: Greatness requires a standard.P3: The standard to God’s greatness requires a standard to be internal or external.P4: Both are incoherent.C2: Either (a) God is not great, or (b) God doesn’t exist.As God is defined as being ‘immensely great’, God requires a standard to be immensely great, and without such a standard, is incoherent if real. C2) Incoherence of a Caused Universe a) Introduction and First Defense of P2 This argument is structured in the following manner. P1: If God exists, the universe has a cause. P2: The universe cannot have a cause. C: God cannot exist. P1 is true by definition, as God is the cause of the universe. P2 is affirmed by basic physics. Physicist Sean Carroll notes two features that are necessary to speak of causality, time (and the arrow of time) and the laws of nature. [2] Causality is incoherent without these features. Sans physical laws we lack the unbreakable principles that don’t allow for things to ‘just happen’, without the arrow of time, which, in turn, is based on entropy via. the second law of thermodynamics [3], we cannot coherently talk about ‘before’ or ‘after’, necessary in order to say “X caused Y to be”, moreover it also entails there is no absolute ‘first’. Outside of, and prior to, the universe, there are no physical laws, nor is there entropy. Without these, causality is incoherent, thus the universe cannot have been caused. The conclusion follows from the premises.b) EternalismTo argue for causation is to propose a capacity for ‘change’. Change is only possible if there is an absolute moving reference point. If there is no such absolute moving reference, to speak of change, and, thus, causation, would be incoherent. According to the B-theory of time and eternalism, the universe is a ‘block’, with no such absolute moving reference, and, thus, is unchanging and cannot have been caused. [4] According to general relativity, space is ‘stretchable’. This was confirmed by the Friedmann observations and Hubble’s Law, that were used by Georges Lemaitre to propose the Big Bang theory, that states the universe is expanding, which is shown via. the cosmological redshift. [5] The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem, derived by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, further supports the theory that the universe is expanding. [6]General relativity also yields ‘eternalism’ or block universe, where the past, present and future are all equally real, and the passage of time is illusory via. the B-theory of time. General relativity models time as a ‘fourth dimension’ of space itself, allowing for the block universe theory to be likely true. Causality cannot be stressed on unless one assumes the presentism ontology of time, which is dubious in light of scientific discoveries supporting eternalism, especially special and general relativity. “Many [scientists and philosophers] have argued against presentism on the grounds that presentism is incompatible with the theory of relativity.” [7]If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent. In special relativity, each observer has their own ‘plane of simultaneity’, a small section of three-dimensional space where all events are simultaneous. [8] “Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over another's (though in a case where one event A happens in the past light cone of another event B, all frames will agree that A happened in the past of B). So, in special relativity there can be no physical basis for picking out a unique set of events that are all happening simultaneously in ‘the present’.” [9] This entails eternalism. C3) Argument from Atemporal MindsI shall now use a contention to attack the metaphysical possibility of an atemporal mind, i.e. God.P1: God is an atemporal being with a mind. P2: All minds require processes. P3: Processes are always temporal and require time. C: An atemporal mind is a contradiction, thus God cannot exist.P1 is true by definition. As God is the creator of the universe, he must be external to the universe. Outside of the universe, there is no time. God is intelligent, and, therefore, has a mind.P2 is accurate as we don’t have a quantitative understanding of intelligence, which must be a subjective property unless it has a process. Subjective properties are incoherent if paired with transcendence, as noted by the incoherence of greatness as a property, thus intelligence has to be objective for the existence of God as a mind, ergo it must involve a process. To argue a mind is not a process is to also concede that the entity is static, and essentially non-causal, thus the mind must involve a process by definition.P3 follows as if time does not exist, there will be no passage of time. It is impossible to coherently talk of a process without the passage of time. For something to coherently ‘happen’ and change something because of that, there has to be the passage of time.The conclusion directly follows from the premises. C4) Law of Parsimonya) DeductiveThe Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam’s Razor, posits that in a group of equally likely explanation, the one with least number of assumptions is a priori most likely. [10] Theism, or even deism, has greater number of assumptions than atheistic metaphysical naturalism. The former assumes the existence of a physical universe, its laws AND God, the latter only assumes the existence of a physical universe and its laws. Therefore, if the existence of God is not required and the functioning of the universe can do without the addition of God, then the other explanation is more likely. [11] b) SubjectiveThe definition of God requires additional properties, such as ‘greatness’, which is incoherent, intelligence, which requires a process, and properties such as omnipotence that we don’t have a quantitative understanding of, and may be incoherent. These properties constantly add complexity to the being, making God’s existence less and less likely.ConclusionThus, I have presented four deductive arguments against the existence of God, and it is likely that God does not exist. I will rebut Pro’s case in the next round. Sources1. Google (“define great”) 2. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... 3. Stephen Hawking (1988). A Brief History of Time. p. 153. 4. http://plato.stanford.edu... 5. http://arxiv.org... 6. http://journals.aps.org... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. https://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://tinyurl.com...;(subheading 1.1) 10. http://plato.stanford.edu... 11. http://russell.mcmaster.ca...