God Does Not Exist

Negative CaseScience & The Great EnforcerPro has misunderstood my argument and represented it incorrectly. I will clarify:Laws are enforced, by definition.Pro writes: "My opponent synthesizes this argument under the pretenses that all physical laws must be enforced. This commits the bare assertion fallacy -- why do these laws have to be enforced? Until appropriate citation is utilized, this assertion remains unverified."The Oxford Dictionary defines law in this context to be "A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present."1 Wikipedia defines laws as being "strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified)"2By definition, a physical law is consistent (i.e. enforced) in all cases without exception. They have become laws because we have observed them to be consistent universally. Questioning why a law must be enforced is irrelevant, as by definition they are. The Great Enforcer: the Root of Laws' ConsistencyPro writes: "Con arrives at an unwarranted conclusion that it must be a God that enforces these physical laws. This begs the question, so it is invalid."This is misleading and incorrect. My precise wording was: "Science proves that something is enforcing those rules". I then used the term The Great Enforcer to describe that 'something'. I never stated that "it must be a God" that enforces these laws. The Great Enforcer is simply a term to describe whatever is at the root of the consistency of physical laws. I then go on to show how that root possesses all the requisite attributes of God, thus it meets the criteria set out at the start of the debate.To say my argument begs the question is dismissive and not addressing the argument itself.Attributes of God: OmnipotencePro writes: "If Con comes to the conclusion that if everything we have observed is not immune to The Great Enforcer's power, then God must have omnipotence, then I also have the right to state that God is not omnipotent, because we have not observed his unlimited power. If we have not seen Him 'do everything' we have no reason to believe that God is truly omnipotent."Pro seems to misunderstand how scientific belief is formed. We form beliefs and understanding based on the evidence at hand. We can extrapolate from our limited findings to make assertions on situations we have not observed. If we observe a physical law holds for each and every object we have ever tested, then we can safely extrapolate that the law will hold for any similar object we have not yet tested. This is why the definition of physical laws contains the wording, "always occurs", even when not all possible situations have been tested and verified.In this situation, we have seen without fail that whatever is at the root of laws' consistency, enforces that consistency on every observed object in existence. From that, we can extrapolate that its influence applies equally over those objects we have not observed, until otherwise disproven. In other words, it is appropriate to form a scientific belief that all objects in the universe are subject to these laws.Something that has the power to force any object in existence to adhere to arbitrary rules is certainly all powerful.Attributes of God: OmnisciencePro writes: "If God is omniscient, God must know what the result of this debate is, although, since we haven't observed what the result is, we have no reason to believe that God knows it (under Con's logical pretenses). We cannot 'observe the future' until it happens, hence we have no reason to believe that God knows the future (as we haven't observed it yet)."Pro's argument is flawed in two ways. I have already discussed how it is proper to develop a scientific belief using the evidence at hand and extrapolating out to scenarios that are untested. In this instance, the root of laws' consistency has maintained that consistency for all of observed time, unerringly. We can extrapolate that the consistency has also held for all unobserved time, and will hold into the future. Pro's argument is also flawed in another way. In my argument, I showed that the root of laws' consistency is transcendent, that it exists outside space-time. Any discussion of past or future for something that is transcendent is irrelevant, as time does not apply to it.God ExistsPro writes: "I would like Con to find an objective denotation of this, and provide evidence that if an aspect of God exists, then God exists." Since the word 'aspect' seems to be causing problems, I will rephrase. At the beginning of this debate, there were three requisite attributes of God: omnipotence, transience and omniscience. I have shown that the root of laws' consistency is omnipotent, transient and omniscient. Thus, it meets the requisite attributes of God. If something that meets the requisite attributes of God exists, then God exists. If that is not the case, then there would be another requisite attribute that has not been met.At the bare minimum, we can prove that God exists, and that God is the root of laws' consistency. I believe there is more than simply this to God, however with our current science and knowledge, not more than this is provable. Still, it is enough to make a firm statement on God's existence.Affirmative CaseA1 Transcendent Entities Cannot "Exist"Pro writes:P1: “Exist” is temporal i.e. it assumes a present tenseP2: Present tenses are temporal phrasesP3: God is transcendent – outside space-timeP4: For something to “exist” that entity must be within space-timeP5: Since God is outside space-time, God cannot existC: Ergo, God cannot existAlthough the argument is sound if you assume P1: "Exist" is temporal, it's a senseless argument, as that immediately makes P3 nonsensical. P3 states that God is outside-space time. By using the word 'is' as a synonym of 'exists', P3 becomes a contradiction. You've set the argument up to fail from the very beginning by choosing your definitions to do so. Even if you want to hold to this, you have not proven the truth of P1. Without that proof, it's just valid but not sound.Finally, it's easy to refute the argument as follows:P1: “Exist” is temporal i.e. it assumes a present tenseP2: Present tenses are temporal phrasesP3: God is transcendent – outside space-timeP4: For something to “exist” that entity must be within space-timeP5: God is omnipotent - has the power to do anythingP6: Since God has the power to do anything, God has the power to "exist" outside space-time, even in a situation of logical contradictionC: Ergo, God can existIn fact, only P5 and P6 are really needed for the conclusion.A2 EternalismPro writes:The Arrow of Time cannot exist without time itself. Hence, God could not have created the universe, without an arrow of time. Since there isn't an arrow of time in a timeless, static place, God could not have created the universe.This is the argument from first cause, only turned on its head. The argument here is that the Arrow of Time would have to exist before God could create the universe (which includes time). Thus, God could not have created the universe and time.The problem here is that God is irrelevant to the argument and can be removed. Once done, it's easy to see that this suffers from the same problems as the argument from first cause. Namely:The Arrow of Time cannot exist without time itself. Hence, the universe could not have been created without an arrow of time. Since there isn't an arrow of time in a timeless, static place, the universe could not have been created.So, what caused the Arrow of Time? It could not have been created without another Arrow of Time, in which case, what caused that? Alternatively, if the Arrow of Time has existed infinitely, then there's no contradiction in the creation of the universe, God-driven or otherwise. A3 Quantum SuperpositionPro writes:P1: God should collapse all particle's wave functionsP2: If not all particle's wave functions are collapsed, God does not existC: God does not existI like this one. It's fun. :)There are more premises behind this argument than you formally lay out, but you explain them in the defense texts. There are a few ways to rebut this argument:1) You state: "God is transcendent viz. God should be able to see the whole universe and everything in it, as God is outside of it. Since God sees all particles, they should all be collapsed."Being able to see is not the same as seeing. Even though God is able to see all particles, God could simply choose not to.2) God is omnipotent: God could decide to be immune to the effect of localization, or could choose to reset the superposition immediately after observing.3) God is omniscient: God already knows the nature of all particles, so God doesn't need to observe them.A3 Omnipotence ParadoxPro writes:If God has omnipotence, (unlimited power) then God would be able to create another deity that is more powerful than God. If God can do this, then this would violate the definition of "God", since God is the most superior. If God has unlimited power, and is the most superior, then God would be able to create a more powerful God without violating the definition of "God", as doing so without violating the definition is more powerful than doing so while violating it. In other words, if God is omnipotent, then God is not limited by logical contradictions.A4 The Argument from Atemporal MindsPremise two is unproven: "If God exists, God must be/have a mind, because knowledge is contingent upon a mind." One could argue that artificial intelligences posses knowledge, but they don't have minds.Premise four is unproven: "Minds imply an interaction in time, since minds include processes." There's no proof that minds must have processes.1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...