Logic Analysis: These arguments disprove the existence of God.

"If any one of my arguments, contentions, or premises stand at the end of this debate, then I would win. If I have shown God's existence to be logically impossible in at least one way, then I win. " Naturally. I will deal with my opponent's first and third contentions this round, and save the question of evil for my next round. ---------------------- REFUTATIONS: ---------------------- Refutation of Contention 1: Omnipotence paradox. :::::Premise 1::::: ***God must be omnipotent to exist*** "Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? " 1. Either God can or can not create the rock. 2. If God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, then God is not omnipotent. 3. If God can not create a rock in the first place, then God is not omnipotent. 4. God is not omnipotent. 5. God does not exist. " First, this argument assumes several things, not necessarily valid: a) God is bound by the laws of non-contradiction b) God is bound by the laws of physics c) God and any physical rock He creates exist in the same paradigm d) God exists in an area with a central gravity ("lift" implies weight and the concept of up/down) We will assume the first of these is true, for the purposes of argument. The other three I contend, as being inconsistent with the nature of God. If God exists, He is spiritual in nature. By definition, God is both present throughout His entire creation and independent from any of it. Lifting is a human term, valid only for beings with: a) physical existence and b) local gravity source. To anthropomorphize God in this way is not a valid method of disproving his existence. Zesus or Thor could be disproven this way, as they were semi-physical in nature; a truly metaphysical God cannot. Further, omnipotence refers to God's unlimited ability to control, create, destroy, and change His creation. God is omnipotent, and can create an infinitely large stone if He so chooses; but He will always be able to change what He creates. This argument thus makes a false dichotomy; a logical fallacy that invalidates the conclusion. :::::Premise 2::::: ***God must be omnipotent AND omniscient to exist*** "1. By definition, omniscience demands the knowledge of everything - including the past, present, and future. 2. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, God is not able to omnipotently change the future because the future is limited to what God knows will happen. --->God is not omnipotent. 3. If a God can omnipotently change the future, then God could have not known about the future in the first place. --->God is not omniscient. 4. God does not exist. " 3 approaches to this: 1. Omniscience includes "middle knowledge;" God knows everything that would happen IF; and changes the future to fit His plans. . http://www.iep.utm.edu... 2. God, if He exists, is outside of time. It is absurd to speak of what "is going to happen" in regard to God; He exists in the Eternal Now, where our past, present, and future are all before him at the same eternal moment. If he is omnipotent, He can change any part of the timeline as He chooses; if He is omniscient, He knows what happens at any point in time because of those changes. 3. Omniscience includes all possible universes. If God knows everything, He must know all possible results of all possible choices; the real future is the one He chose to come into existence through His actions on the real past. If any of these alternate approaches are valid, my opponent's argument is invalid. Also, these alternates are not mutually contradictory; all three of them could conceivably be true, making this contention that much less plausible. Refutation of Contention 3: Who created God? "1. Everything needs a cause. [causal law] 2. God is a part of everything. 3. God needs a cause. 4. If God was caused, then God's creator needs a cause. 5. This sets up an infinite regress, which is not logically valid. 6. God does not exist. " This argument is an application of the paradox of existence (if the universe had a beginning, what came before? ) to God's existence. It has, however, several fatal flaws when considering the nature of Deity. This argument presupposes several things: a) that God, if he exists, is affected by the laws of nature b) that God, if he exists, is bound within our linear temporal framework, c) that an infinite regress is not logically valid. He did not establish why his claim to this effect is valid. The "causal law" refers to physical, temporally bound phenomena. It is a distillation of our observations here in time; everything we have ever seen has a beginning and an end, a cause and an affect. However, by definition, God is eternal. Hence, the term "everything" in my opponent's argument does not include God. DEFINITION: Eternal: without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ). 4. Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change. . http://dictionary.reference.com... As God is non-temporal in nature, it is absurd to speak of something as having been before Him or after Him; "before" is meaningless when taken out of the framework of time. A cause must precede the thing caused; Nothing can precede God; :. God cannot have a cause. Furthermore, God cannot be subject to the laws of nature. He is by definition independent of the physical universe (independence from His creation). If He exists, he created the universe and it's laws; why should He be subject to them? A quick note on this line: God is by definition infinite in power, knowledge, and extent; immeasurable is the term used. All physical phenomena can be measured. Therefore if God exists, He cannot be physical in nature. But a spiritual entity is not bound by the laws of physics; therefore all arguments that attempt to contain God within the rules of the physical universe are invalid. I return this debate to my opponent, and look forward to his reply.