God exists (pro) vs God does not exist (con)

Thanks and good luck Pro. During this Round it is my responsibility to present the case that the Theistic concept of God does not exist. I will present 5 arguments. 1) Argument from the meaninglessness of the God-concept "What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it." -St. Augustine When the Atheist asks the Theist: "What is God?". We can determine whether or not Theists can answer such a question. In turn this enables us to reach a conclusion about the meaning of religious discourse. Put simply if they cannot meet this burden, then the God-concept is meaningless and can be rejected out-of-hand. Argument (adapted from a formulation by Francois Tremblay): 1. There are three attributes of existents: A.Primary Attributes (fundamental character) B.Secondary Attributes (character which can be enacted by virtue of A.) C.Relational Attributes (ability to interact with other existants by virtue of A. and B.) 2. B. as well as C. are dependent upon and must be related to A in order to be meaningful. 3. The concept "God" lacks a positively identified A. 4. Because of this, the concept "God" holds no justified A., B., or C. 5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A., B., and C) is meaningless. 6. Therefore, the concept "God" is meaningless. 7. Therefore, the God-concept is invalid and it refers to no actual thing in existence. To quote George Smith: " To say that an 'unie' possesses wisdom in proportion to its nature while stipulating that such wisdom is different in kind from man's wisdom and that the nature of an 'unie' is unknowable and contributes nothing to our understanding of an 'unie' or to the meaning of the attributes when applied to an 'unie'." It is the conclusion of this argument that if the Theist cannot identify the primary attributes of a god, that all resulting religious discourse is meaningless god-talk. I will borrow an analogy from a fellow Atheist (apologies the name alludes me). One can ask of believers in the Yellow Quantum Whisperer (YQW): "what is a Yellow Quantum Whisperer?". The response maybe "it is yellow, lives at the quantum level, whispers and is responsible for quantum superposition". Now the non-believer points out that this makes no sense. The concept of whispering requires existence, at least above an atomic level for sound to reverberate through a medium (such as air). The concept of being yellow requires existence, at least the level above the quantum level to distinguish the qualities of light waves. But furthermore we can also point out that, even if these were not impossible characteristics, it doesn't actually tell us what a YQW actually is. If the YQW believer now states that "well the YQW is invisible and sub-atomic", all that has happened is that we have swapped unanchored and impossible secondary attributes, for negatively identified primary attributes. I now know the YQW concept has the attribute of not existing above the atomic level, and of not being visible, but I still do not know what it is. At this point we can reject the existence of the YQW given its meaninglessness. The YQW is referring to nothing instantiated in reality, but is a free floating abstraction (merely an impossible concept, like a square triangle). Likewise when we ask "What is God?", we are met by terms which are either: 1) secondary attributes (like Omni-"insert here claim"); 2) relational attributes (like Creator); or 3) negative stated primary attributes (like spaceless, timeless, immaterial etc). The problem here is that only identifying negative attributes can only tell us what the concept of God is not, not what it is. This leads us to conclude that the God-concept as presented by Theists is meaningless and should be rejected, in that it cannot and does not refer to any actual thing in reality. Smith, again, puts it this way: "To say that God is good or wise is to say nothing more then some unknowable being, possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way." 2) Argument from the "Alone Deity" Theism asserts the existence of a lonesome, disembodied consciousness, which is unchanging and ontologically prior to Existence. 1. If Theism is true, then a being existed alone ontologically prior to Existence 2. 1. depends wholly on the truth of the Primacy of Consciousness (PoC) 3. PoC is false 4. From 1., 2. and 3. Theism is false The opposite perspective of the PoC is the Primacy of Existence (PoE). Denial of the PoE, is to deny the validity of one's own consciousness which perceives Existence. Quoting Peikoff (Philosophy:Who needs it? p24). "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are (A is A), that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists"and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the so-called primacy of consciousness (PoC)"the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both)." Theism is already pre-committed to the PoC. It argues that a conscious being can exist alone ontologically prior to Existence. In other words that a god exists conscious only of its own consciousness. But as Rand pointed out, this is a contradiction in terms. Before it can identify itself as conscious, it must be conscious of something. This problem is further compounded for the Theist. The same god is described as spaceless and incorporeal. In other words it has no means by which to be conscious. Furthermore it is said to be timeless and changeless, meaning that if they ontologically existed, prior to Existence, then they are still existing and will always exist in that same state. It is akin to stating that God exists as a void, in a void. The difference between that, and something not existing at all, is nothing. Therefore Theism is false. 3) The hiddenness of God Pioneered by John Schellenberg. If God does exist, then reasonable non-belief would not occur. A perfectly loving God would desire that people believe and ensure that a reasonable person, had a reasonable chance of attaining such knowledge. Furthermore, millions of people even after studying the evidence, and examining their own motives of belief, praying and seeking God, still do not believe and see no good reason to believe. The argument is: 1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving. 2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable non-belief does not occur. 3. Reasonable non-belief occurs. 4. from 2. And 3. no God exists. It is of course open to the Theist to claim that those earnestly seeking God will find him. This seems a desperately fallacious response given it is effectively an ad hominem. It also of course ignores the problem of religious confusion (not presented here separately). So the Theist is left holding an empty sack. If a God exists why is it not more obvious, why the hide-and-seek? 4) The Problem of Divine Freedom "Though God is the most perfectly free agent, he cannot do always what is best and wisest in the whole" -Samuel Clark There are of course many formalised objections (notable Ted Drange et al) to the contradictory characteristics of the Theistic concept of a God. William Rowe highlighted a powerful objection based on the lack of Freedom that any such God has. If a God has no option but to create humanity (because of his desired relationship and loving nature), he is neither free not do so, nor is he worthy of worship. Like a computer program he simply executed commands in accordance with his programmed characteristics. 1. If God exists then he is perfectly loving, powerful and free. 2. If Theism is true, God desires a relationship with humanity and is worthy of the worship of humanity (because he decided to create us). 3. From 1. and 2. God has no option but to create humanity 4. But 1. and 3. are contradictory, because God cannot freely decide, not to create humanity 5. And from 2. and 3. God is contradicted as not worthy of worship. 6. From 1., 2., 4. and 5. God does not exist and Theism is false. 5) Mind-brain dependence Lastly I will turn to an inductive argument. As such I can only conclude that, if the argument is sound, God probably does not exist. However, given the cumulative case, this is just further evidence to support the contention that God does not exist. 1. Minds are emergent properties of brains. 2. By induction, we obtain: Probably, no mind can exist without a brain. 3. If God exists then he has a mind, but no brain (incorporeal). 4. Therefore, from 1., 2. and 3. God probably does not exist as he has no brain from which a mind can emerge. There is an additional problem for theists. Theism is already pre-committed to some form of Substance Dualism. Theism argues that there is an essential 'soul' separate from the body, which leaves the body at death with all mental faculties in place. The soul is poorly defined concept, but is commonly held to be synonymous with the 'mind'. Substance Dualism can not be sustained because of the interaction problem and empirical issues associated with physical brain damage. This means that Theism is probably false. In my next post I will turn to rebuttals of my opponent's opening arguments: 1) The argument from contingency, and 2) The KCA.