God Couldn't Have Caused The First Moment Of Time

However, I do not think the contentions he brings up actually undermine my argument. If his contentions do not undermine my argument, then my argument stands and the resolution has been affirmed. Contention 1: A Maximally Great Entity Is Not Necessarily An Intelligent Entity My opponent states that it may seem incoherent to call an entity maximally great if the being is not capable of thought; this is exactly correct. It seems rather absurd to think of a Maximally Great Being who cannot even process a thought, if even less great beings like us can perform such a task. Con then argues that the purpose of a thought is to acquire knowledge and beliefs, but since a Maximally Great Being would have all the knowledge and beliefs then thinking is not required. The problem with this argument is that the purpose of a thought doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gaining new knowledge or beliefs, as the purpose of thinking usually pertains to mental reflection upon what is already known and believed. Intelligence is what you do with knowledge, but it isn't knowledge itself. Now, a being who can think and reflect upon his thoughts, is intelligent and is deserving of the term "Maximally Great". A Maximally Great Being who cannot even think is self-evidently nonsense. Additionally, even if one was to grant my opponent's contention for the sake of argument, all that would show is that God doesn't have to be necessarily viewed as a Maximally Great Being. However, intelligence is something inherent to the concept of what God is conceived as by virtually all believers (I know believers who reject the notion that God has to be a Maximally Great Being, but seldom find who who thinks he is not intelligent). Remember, that without essential attributes attributed to God by humans, then "God" is a meaningless term. The very word "God" implies intelligence. As popular Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states: "As a pure mind without a body, God is a remarkably simple entity. " - William Lane Craig[1] Also, on a popular Christian website, the author wrote: "God is able to make decisions. He is not merely a robot, but instead has the ability to decide to do certain things. "[2] Decisions by their very essence are the product of thought. If I make a choice that implies I thought about it, or else the whole scenario is reduced to a mechanical or robotic situation. I think it is clear that any reasonable conception of God includes him being intelligent, and able to process thoughts and think. Therefore, I do not see my opponent's contention as causing any harm to my argument. Contention Two: A Being That Does Not Experience Time Is Not Necessarily Incapable Of Performing An Action Over Time. With this contention, Con seems to engage in the red-herring fallacy[3]. This fallacy is when someone presents something irrelevant to stray from the real issue. It doesn't matter whether God experiences time or not, the argument I am presenting pertains to whether God is within time or not. If God exists, he is either in time, or not in time (The Law of Excluded Middle[4]). Since the question is whether or not God is in time, not God's non-experience of time or performance of actions over time, then this contention does absolutely nothing to dent my position. Contention Three: An Entity That Does Not Exist Within The Space-Time Continuum Is Not Necessarily Incapable Of Change. Unfortunately, Con's argument here violates the Law of Noncontradiction[5]. If God exists in another sort of time, then he couldn't have caused the first moment of time (as time would already exist as the background God exists in). Remember, my argument deals with time, not specifically our physical time within this universe; time itself. Since another form of time would still fall into the category of "time", then my argument that the cause of the first moment of time has to be timeless cannot be avoided. Conclusion None of my opponents contentions are valid or sound. Contention 1 implies God doesn't have to be intelligent but this essentially denies God what it is to be God, and reduces the world "God" into nothing. A Maximally Great Being surely would be able to process thoughts, especially considering the fact that the sole purpose of thoughts has nothing to do with gaining knowledge of beliefs. Contention 2 is based on a red-herring logical fallacy which makes it invalid. The issue is with regards to God existing within time or outside of time; not his actions or experiences specifically. Contention 3 violates an essential rule of logic. If God exists in some sort of time already, then he cannot cause the first moment of time (that would contradict the original assumption that God exists within some time). Note that this debate deals with "time", so any time falls under that umbrella, as any time is obviously time. There is nothing about my argument that states that the cause of the first moment of physical time must be timeless, the argument states that the cause of time itself (which ever kind of time that may be) must be timeless. Since none of my opponent's objections go through; my argument remains unscathed. .. The resolution has been affirmed. Sources [1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] . http://www.skepticalchristian.com... [3] . http://www.nizkor.org... [4] . http://www.stanford.edu... [5] . http://plato.stanford.edu...