The God Debate

Thanks for that response Pro.We all know how DDO isn't necessarily the only thing in our lives, and giving up a round, in the grand scheme of things is no biggy.So, enjoy using the 5th round to rebuttal along with your conclusions.*NO STATIVE TIME = NO CREATION*Pro mentions:"Let me first address that my opponent gave a wonderful demonstration of our current understanding of quantum fluctuations and how that relates to our current models of Big Bang cosmology.My response:Awesome, thanks.Pro continues:"The conclusion however is what baffles me...'creation is a temporal process, contingent on stative time...temporal processes like creation are nonsensical without stative time'...now I"m interested, what makes my opponent think that "stative time" presupposes causality?"My response:This is an example of Pro trying to morph what I said, but anyone reading this can see it.Pro equivocates creation with causation, in fact, I invite anyone to use their web browser's word search tool, and search for the term "causation" or the term "causality" and see if I mentioned it AT ALL...seriously, go ahead.You'll find that it was ONLY Pro who has used the term causation or causality, and I used the term "creation" because that's what was claimed about god in this debate, per round 1 when Pro clearly stated that god was "creator of all things."Notice that Pro did not say "causer" of all things.Here's why it matters:1. creation - the PROCESS of bringing something into existence.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2. causation - the relationship between cause and effect.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Creation is a process, and processes require stative time, because a process is a series of actions or steps.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Pro, can you explain how you can tell the difference between a creator and its created product without time?How can you explain creator-->creating-->created product without a series of actions?Creators NECESSARILY precede their creations, and precedence requires stative time. Therefore, CREATION, not CAUSATION or CAUSALITY, is a temporal process that requires stative time for a creator to pre-exist its creation and allow said pre-existence to create and bring about its created product.Pro, how do you reconcile this?Pro continues anyway:"Why could not God sustain a number in a timeless existence? I"m interested to hear why it is impossible."My response:God is defined by Pro as the creator of all things.Creation is a process that requires stative time.If the universe wasn't created because stative time is a property of the universe itself, then god didn't create the universe and isn't the creator of all things.That's why it's impossible.How do you tell the difference between a creator and its created product without time?This is the impossibility of your claim.Pro still continues:"When we look at the entire sphere of causality, we see that there are two types: temporal and logical."My response:How about when we look at the entire sphere of CREATION, Pro?Are there two types of creation that somehow don't necessitate stative time?This is particularly damning to Pro's argument of god is the creator of all things, because not only would god have to have created a universe that wasn't created, but god would have to use a temporal process, CREATION, to create time itself.How could god have used time to create time?That's baffling!Pro makes a Kantian analogy:"Imagine a heavy ball resting on a cushion from eternity past, the physical proximity of the ball and cushion will form a concave depression (indentation) in the cushion that is co-eternal with the ball and cushion... Now if I may ask... What is the cause of this concavity?"My response:I don't know.What's the creation of the cushion/ball?Did that creation require time?Also, since Pro said that it was "a cushion from eternity past," this shows that the cushion preceded the ball...either way the analogy is irrelevant to creation, which is what Pro needs to address here, not causality. Pro drags on:"This is a great example in displaying how the concept of causation is logically coherent outside the bound of a temporal framework."My response:And what about the temporal process of creation, a series of actions?*OMNIPOTENCE*Hey, I found out from reading Pro's arguments, that I'm omnipotent.Isn't that special?I had always assumed that omnipotent meant unlimited power, but it turns out, omnipotent means unlimited within your limited nature. I offered the oxford dictionary's definition of omnipotent, which says that omnipotent means unlimited power, but because it damns Pro's argument of god, Pro seeks to change that to:"having unlimited power and authority of that which is not contradictory to His own nature"This means that I'm omnipotent, because I am unlimited to things within my nature as well.I can't fly, but that would be contradictory to being a human, so I'm still omnipotent within my nature.I may be limited to actions, but this limit is part of my nature, so I'm still omnipotent within my nature.Pro even refutes himself:"having a human nature, I cannot run faster than a cheetah, my human nature *restricts* it...so too with God"My response:Pro admits that god is restricted to things within his nature, so this shows that there are things outside of god's nature that god is restricted from.Does that sound like unlimited to you?Pro admits god's limits.I maintain that true omnipotence would be truly unlimited, such that god should be able to do ANYTHING, but in Pro's argument to prove the omnipotence of god, Pro lists:"1. God cannot...2. God cannot...3. God cannot...4. God cannot...5. God cannot..."My response:I expected that if one were to prove that something is capable of ALL things, or has ALL powers, there'd be a lot less "cannot" and a lot more "can," but this effectively shows that there are SO MANY THINGS that "God cannot" do.This doesn't reek of omnipotence, does it, Pro?Whatever, by Pro's definition, you, I, plants, insects, and bacteria are all omnipotent, because we CAN'T do anything outside of our nature, just like god.Pro adds:"So when my atheist friends adopt a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence without logically tracing out its implications, what follows is the supposed 'omnipotence paradox's that are not adequate in their explanatory scope."My response:Translation:God cannot do all things, he's clearly limited, and pointing this out is damning to Pro's case, so Pro has redefined unlimited power to mean unlimited power within a limited nature; I feel so omnipotent today, and you should too.*OMNIBENEVOLENCE*Pro furthers his concession that god cannot do all things and is not the creator of all things...Pro mentions:"It is false that an omnipotent God can logically create any world...certain worlds that are 'possible' which God is incapable of creating."My response:So, god can't create any world, even it's possible?Yet another limit to this ever-limited god that you're purporting.Pro says it's an assumption to say "If God is omnibenevolent then he prefers a world without evil."Yeah, evil would be contradictory to ALL good, as evil is the opposite of good, so it would follow that god should want a world without evil.However, since Pro is changing unlimited to mean limited, and all good to mean some evil, none of this makes sense to Pro; it should be clear to readers what Pro is trying to do.Pro is redefining words to fit his god where he doesn't belong, namely in the categories of ALL powerful and ALL good. Pro also admits that god CANNOT create free will without evil, which again shows how god is limited in his power.This next bit from Pro really disturbed me, and it makes god look pretty disgusting.Pro posits:"God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the suffering in the world."My response:Aside from god being UNABLE to suffice morality WITHOUT suffering, which should be something an omnipotent being can accomplish, "allowing" suffering negates omnibenevolence.What moral reasons does an omnipotent being have to ALLOW suffering?It's like if god were to say, "You know, I could stop suffering from happening, but i won't...without it i can't achieve my moral goals."If god needs suffering to accomplish morality, then he's not able to do anything and he's not all good...he sucks for this reason.Pro adds, disgustingly so:"After all, we all understand that suffering for a time will produce a better result."My response:Tell that to babies born with malaria that god created.Tell that to children who are raped repeatedly by the evil men that god allows to do such things.How does suffering achieve a better result Pro?If you truly believe this, forget about this debate, you are a disgusting being...I'm serious.Suffering IS NOT A MEANS to justify morality, it's wrong, and if you don't understand that, then we should inject you with AIDS, rape you, and watch you suffer, and maybe we can achieve a better result...ugh Pro, that was really bad.*CONCLUSION*Pro has admitted over and over again that god cannot do things, even if they're possible, because god's nature is so very limited.Why is a being who is unlimited have so many limits?Because this being does not exist.Pro has also admitted that god needs suffering to achieve morality.Think about that.Your powers are unlimited, but you can't achieve morality without babies suffering from diseases you've created and allowed to flourish.Pro has conflated causation and creation, with the latter necessitating time that was not there sans universe.There is no time based action without time.No creation, no creator. I hope Pro can redeem himself from saying that suffering makes for a better reult...that grossed me out and showed god's immorality...yuck.