God Does Not Exist

Affirmative CaseA1 Transcendent Entities Cannot "Exist"This is an argument created by myself. I would like to see how it turns out in a debate.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 exist All premises in this argument appear axiomatic. I will provide further justification if Con wishes.A2 EternalismEternalism is the ontological nature of time, where the past, present and future are all equally real. Eternalism is corroborated by special relativity, as it shows that absolute simultaneity is false. (1) But this raises the question: if all three tenses of time are equally real, then why can't we "remember" the future? This question can be simply answered by the radiative arrow of time: Hence, we cannot "remember" or "see" the future, as the light has not reached us yet. "Thus causality is intimately bound up with time's arrow." (2)Causality is contingent upon "The Arrow of Time" viz. causality is inherently incoherent without time's arrow. The Arrow of Time is the asymmetry of time, thus 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.A3 Quantum SuperpositionP1: God should collapse all particle's wave functionsP2: If not all particle's wave functions are collapsed, God does not existC: God does not existDefense of premise oneThe double-slit experiment demonstrates that particles can act like, waves and particles. The experiment belongs to a general class of "double path" experiments, in which a wave is split into two separate waves that later combine into a single wave. Changes in the path lengths of both waves result in a phase shift, creating an interference pattern. (3) As shown by the double-slit experiment, particle’s (when observed) wave functions collapse so the particle can choose one quantum state. Until it is observed, we must assume all quantum states to be equally real, as postulated in the ‘Schrödinger's cat’ Analogy. When observed, particles become localised.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.Defense of premise twoThis must be true, as if it was not, Quantum Superposition would not be true and the Cat analogy would have never been thought of. A3 Omnipotence ParadoxP1: God is defined as possessing omnipotenceP2: Omnipotence is sophistryP3: If omnipotence is sophistry then God is sophistryP4: Omnipotence is sophistry, so God is sophistryC: Therefore, God is sophistryDefense of premise oneGod is defined as having omnipotenceDefense of premise twoIf 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 cannot do this, then God is limited by logic - if God is limited by logic, then God does not truly have unlimited power. Therefore, the concept of omnipotence is sophistry.Defense of premise threeIf God is defined as having omnipotence, and the concept of omnipotence is sophistry, then the concept of God is sophistry.Defense of premise fourGod has omnipotence, so God is sophistry.A4 The Argument from Atemporal MindsThis argument assumes the following logical format:P1: God exists transcendentlyP2: God is/has a mindP3: If God transcendent, then God's mind is atemporalP4: If God's mind is atemporal, then God's mind cannot existP5: If God's mind cannot exist, then God cannot existC: God cannot existDefense of premise oneGod is defined as having transcendent existenceDefense of premise twoIf God exists, God must be/have a mind, because knowledge is contingent upon a mind.Defense of premise threeTemporal minds imply a mind that exist within space-time. Since God exists outside space-time, the implication is reversed.Defense of premise fourMinds imply an interaction in time, since minds include processes. Processes infer a finite amount of time, however, time is non-existent in a timeless place... If God's mind is atemporal, then God's mind cannot involve processes. Therefore, a timeless mind is sophistry. If God is/has a mind, then God is sophistry.Defense of premise fivePremise five is valid as long as premise five is valid.Negative CaseScience & The Great EnforcerIn this argument, Con states many physical laws and how they exist within our universe. 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. Nevertheless, even if this assertion is deemed with proper veracity, it does not affirm the existence of a God. Moreover, 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. Thus, the validity of the two fundamental facets of Con's argument need to be demonstrated. This argument is a non-sequitur, as Con cannot fulfill the burden that the physical laws must be enforced -- Con makes the claim that "science proves that something is enforcing those rules", but this remains unsourced, and Con must then argue that a God is the one that enforces those rules.An Aspect of GodIn this argument, Con begins to justify that "The Great Enforcer" is in fact "God". He does this by stating that He has the attributes that God was defined as. "Science shows us that the Great Enforcer is omnipotent. We have found no object that is exempt or immune to the power of the Great Enforcer. All matter and energy, everything in the entire universe is subject to the laws of the universe, and there is nothing we have found that can break these laws. The Great Enforcer has total dominion over the universe."Con's justification appears counter-intuitive. His rationale for The Great Enforcer having omnipotence, is that there is nothing (that we have observed) that is exempt to His power. In fact, we have not observed The Great Enforcer create two universes. We have not observed The Great Enforcer create a 500ft tall human. 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."Science has shown us that the Great Enforcer is omniscient. We have found no instance of a situation or object that the Great Enforcer doesn't know about. It is impossible to fool or distract the Great Enforcer, or to hide from its power. The Great Enforcer has knowledge of everything in the universe, and thus is able to enforce the rules for all."The same form of reverse logic can be applied in this argument. Knowledge of everything in our universe does not pertain to "unlimited knowledge". If we assume Con's logic is sound, then we can come to a reverse conclusion; Con states that we have not observed anything that God doesn't know, therefore, He must be omniscient. 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). Ergo, Con has not demonstrated that this God has true omniscience. God ExistsIn this summary of sorts, Con moves the goalposts by stating: "Even if my opponent argues against the Great Enforcer meeting the criteria for one or more of the attributes of God, my opponent would still need to come up with another explanation for what the Great Enforcer is. Something that can literally control every thing in every place across all time certainly sounds like the definition of God."That is not my burden to carry. Con is the person who ought to make the ontological leap; not me. If you accuse me of stealing your cookie, and I present an alibi of how it could not of been me, you simply cannot say, "well if you didn't steal it, you must present to me the person who actually stole it". This is raising the bar. Con's SyllogismWell, it's not really a syllogism, as Con uses an premise as a conclusion. To invalidate the logical format, I will attack that premise."If an aspect of God exists, God exists."Con makes the bare assertion that "The Great Enforcer is an aspect of God". I commend that Con provides credibility for this claim. Con also makes the unwarranted escalation that if an aspect of God exists, God exists. "Aspect", seems rather subjective to me. I normally link it to "property". Moreover, I would like Con to find an objective denotation of this, and provide evidence that if an aspect of God exists, then God exists. ConclusionI have shown with many affirmations that God does not exist. I thank my opponent for accepting my debate and I wish him good luck with his rebuttal. :)(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...