God Does Not Exist

Negative CaseScience & The Great EnforcerPro writes:"I now concur -- for now. Although, "enforce" seems a little vague. What is this enforcer doing exactly?"I'm glad to hear we agree that The Great Enforcer exists. As I mentioned, this is just a term for whatever is at the root of the consistency of physical laws. What the enforcer is doing is creating, dictating or "enforcing" that consistency.Attributes of God: OmnipotencePro writes:"All Con has proposed, is that the great enforcer enforces all physical laws, it makes another ad hoc assumption. Hence, the hypothesis that this being is omnipotent is simply refuted by Occam's Razor. ... To extrapolate that this enforcer is definitely omnipotent with limited observation posits another ad hoc."I don't understand what part of my argument is 'ad hoc', or 'after the fact'. I've been arguing this from the beginning: P1: Whatever enforces the physical laws has the power to enforce them universally to all things. - Evidenced through countless scientific experimentsP2: There is nothing in the universe immune to the enforcer's power. - From P1P3: There is nothing in existence more powerful than that which enforces the physical laws. - For something to be more powerful, it would have to be able to resist the enforcer's powerP4: The enforcer of physical laws is the most powerful force in the universe, i.e. all powerful- From P3P5: A being that is all powerful is omnipotent- From the Latin, omni = all, potens = powerfulP6: The enforcer of physical laws is omnipotent- From P4 and P5C: The enforcer of physical laws is omnipotentPro writes:"it is unwarranted to say that this enforcer is omnipotent, as we have not observed it create anything -- even if it enforces the rules does not mean that it created them"I agree that we cannot say whether the enforcer created the rules. Limitations of science prevent us from determining that.However, we can definitely say that the enforcer created every physical object in this universe. From the very beginnings of the Big Bang, we have scientific evidence to show that physical laws were being enforced. By enforcing the laws, quarks and gluons were created. Laws were enforced to combine these to create proton and neutrons. Elemental atoms were created by laws being enforced, and then molecules. 1Molecules made larger collections of matter, which gathered together to create suns and planets, air, land and water. The enforcement of laws created the chemical setup required for life, first cells, then more complex organisms, eventually you and me. 2Everyone and everything is causally linked back to the start of the universe. And at the root of each and every causal event is the enforcement of the laws of the universe. If those laws were not consistently enforced, then we would not exist. As a corollary, because those laws were enforced, we and everything around us does exist.Attributes of God: OmnisciencePro writes:"Since this enforcer has only been shown to enforce physical laws, it does not necessarily 'know' everything."I disagree. In order to be able to enforce laws universally, it must know everything. If it didn't know everything, then it could not properly enforce the laws. The problem here is that you're defining knowledge using a human understanding of it, not in a universal sense. You might say that the enforcer doesn't 'know' that a person is sad. Yet, 'sad' is a human concept. 'Sad' doesn't truly exist, just as 'red' or 'blue' doesn't truly exist. Colors are simply wavelengths of light. Emotions are simply neurological states. We may experience 'sad', but all that really exists is the chemical and electrical signals in our brains.The enforcer of laws knows the chemical and electrical states of our brains, and of every brain in the universe at all times. It knows everything at the most fundamental level of knowledge, the physical level. One could argue that knowing purely physical knowledge doesn't really result in higher comprehension of that knowledge. However, that argument is moot, as by definition, omniscience is 'all knowing', not 'all comprehending'. Besides, using comprehension would bias the argument toward one understanding of the universe, in this case 'human understanding'.Attributes of God: TranscendencePro writes:"Why can't the enforcer exist within space-time? Why can't the enforcer enforce all physical laws within space-time?"I've already explained that the enforcer has been shown to exert its power throughout all of time and all of space, and enforces laws that influence and change time and space. In order to be able to enforce these laws universally, it cannot be subject to the changes in time and space that occur when these laws are enforced.SummaryPro has agreed that the Great Enforcer exists, but has contentions about whether the enforcer has the requisite attributes of God. I have answered Pro's questions and have given reasons why those attributes are met.Affirmative CaseA1 Transcendent Entities Cannot "Exist"Pro writes:"I guess this argument relies upon the omnipotence paradox argument."It sounds like the fate of A1 will depend on A3-2, Omnipotence Paradox. If A3-2 is proven, A1 may be sound. If A3-2 is disproven, A1 is not sound. If you are in agreement, then I think we can conclude discussion of A1, and focus on A3-2.A2 EternalismPro writes:"There would have to be an Arrow of Time for causality to happen. Without it, causality is incoherent. This point has not been addressed and Con presents a strawman to this argument."Pro dismisses my argument as a strawman without giving any reason to back up that claim. I present my argument again, and invite my opponent to give reasons why it is a strawman:Pro's argument suffers from the same problems as the argument from first cause. If there must be an Arrow of Time for causality to happen, then what created that Arrow of Time? There are four possible answers to that question:1) Something created that Arrow of Time in a situation without an Arrow of Time- Pro has already argued that this is impossible2) Something created that Arrow of Time in a situation where there was another Arrow of Time- If this is the case, then the next question is, what created the earlier Arrow of Time? Either it reduces to option 1, or the question remains unanswered as it continually takes option 2 (this option) ad infinitum. 3) The Arrow of Time was not created, and exists without cause- If the Arrow of Time has existed infinitely, then there is no contradiction to the creation of the rest of the universe using that Arrow of Time for causality4) The Arrow of Time is not actually required for there to be causalityPro should either answer the question of what created the Arrow of Time, or explain why my argument offers no value to the discussion.In reference to option 3, Pro writes:"If the Arrow of Time existed infinitely, it would render the definition of God incoherent, as the creator of the universe was an inherent requisite under this resolution."This would be true unless the Arrow of Time were God (or a part of God). If God were the Arrow of Time, and existed infinitely, then God could create the universe without contradiction.A3-1 Quantum SuperpositionThanks. It was a neat theory.A3-2 Omnipotence ParadoxPro writes:"Con just presented the paradox it creates. It would cause a logical contradiction while doing that."A logical contradiction would normally render a premise impossible. However that is not the case when talking about omnipotence. P1: Something that is omnipotent is all powerful- By definitionP2: Something that is not limited is more powerful than something that is limited- By definition of power: "The ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way" 3P3: Something omnipotent is not limited- From P1 and P2P4: Proof by contradiction requires a premise to be limited by logic 4- Proof by contradiction starts with assuming the negative and showing that the assumption logically leads to a contradiction. If it leads to a contradiction, then the original assumption cannot exist in light of the contradiction, therefore the opposite must be true. (Pro lays out a proof by contradiction in the 'Defense of premise two' part of Pro's round 2 arguments)The limitation invoked is that the assumed premise cannot exist in light of the contradiction. This is a logical constraint, which follows the rules of classical logic. If this limitation didn't exist, then proof by contradiction wouldn't work.P5: Something omnipotent cannot be disproven using a proof by contradiction- Something unlimited cannot be limited by logicP6: Pro's Omnipotence Paradox argument uses proof by contradiction- See 'Defense of premise two' part of Pro's round 2 argumentsC: Pro's Omnipotence Paradox argument does not disprove omnipotence.It's apt that Pro calls this the Omnipotence Paradox. A paradox is "A seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true." 5A4 The Argument from Atemporal MindsPro writes:"If God exists, God must be/have a mind, because knowledge is contingent upon a mind.""A mind can be defined as: 'intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence.' Hence, anything that fulfills this definition has a mind."Although Pro has supplied a definition, Pro still has not proven that God must have a mind. There is nothing saying God must have intellect, understanding or intelligence. Knowledge is not contingent upon a mind. A library contains much knowledge, but has no mind.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...4. http://mfleck.cs.illinois.edu...5. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...