God Does Not Exist

Argument From Temporal MindsCon doesn't respond to my first premise, meaning that if the second premise goes through; the entire argument goes through.Now, my opponent argues that thoughts aren't necessarily the product of thinking by definition. However, this is clearly false according to the definitions of the word:"A product of thinking"[1]"A single act or product of thinking"[2]["An idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind" [3]My opponent seems to want to change the English language, but of course, when one resorts to that, this just shows the strength of the overall argument. How does my opponent define a thought? He defines it has such:"Thought, in its most basic form, is the instantaneous connection of two pre-introduced concepts." - ConThis definition is insufficient, as it is illogical. A concept is an idea by definition[4][5][6], and an idea by definition is a thought[7][8][9]. Thus, my opponent's definition is essentially "a thought is the instantaneous connection of two pre-introduced thoughts". Not only is that definition circular, but it leads to infinite regress of thoughts because those two pre-conceived thoughts would be connections of four preconceived thoughts before it, and those would have to connect eight before it, and so on and so forth ad inifinitum. This would mean that all minds have to be infinite; which is absurd.Since my opponents definition is illogical, is must be rejected. Thus, my definition of "thought" stands. Also, my opponent did no object to the notion that thinking is temporal. This is problematic, because thinking is inherent to the very definition of mind. Thus, we don't even need the "thoughts" argument. A mind is defined as:"[T]he part of a person that thinks, reasons, feels, and remembers"[10]"[T]he element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc"[11]My opponent concedes that thinking is temporal:"[T]hinking is temporal" - ConSince thinking is inherent to the very notion of a mind (a mind that doesn't think is like a flame that doesn't burn, it is completely incoherent), then my opponent essentially concedes the argument that a mind cannot be temporal. Thus, God does not exist. Summary of the Argument from Temporal Minds. My definitions are the standard definitions. Con has to essentially change inherent meanings of words to try to undermine my argument (which speaks volumes to the power of my argument). My opponent's definition of a thought is circular (it basically has "thoughts" right inside the definition indirectly), plus it leads to the notion that all minds are infinite. Also, the idea of thoughts just being "connections of connections" is rather bizarre. Con gave us no valid, or sound reason to reject the standard definition of thought. Thus, it stands, and the argument follows.. Thinking is inherent to what a mind is. A mind that doesn't think is like water that doesn't have molecules; these notions go against the very nature of the thing in question. Also, the definition of mind has "thinking" right inside of it. Thus, since my opponent admits thinking is temporal; he admits a mind must be temporal. Thus, the argument follows; God does not exist. Argument From HumansMy opponent commits a straw-man fallacy. God is not defined as just a supernatural being, but a perfect being. If a perfect being exists, then he must have certain modal properties as does everything else[12]. This means that if God exists, he either has:(i) The property of necessarily being the necessary condition for only perfection(ii) The property of possibly being the necessary condition for imperfectionWhat stems from God would just be a reflection of his nature if he exists (sort of like how logic would be inherent to God's nature, therefore, he cannot be the necessary condition for illogical things like round squares). This means that a truly perfect being has (i), not (ii) (it would be impossible to have both). However, humans are not the greatest conceivable created beings (we could have more intelligence ect.). We would have to be if we really stemmed from a perfect being. Thus, a perfect being does not exist. Summary of the Argument from humansThe argument from humans shows that a perfect being would have created more perfect beings than us, instead of us if he existed. Since we exist; this confirms God's non-existence. Con's rebuttal was based on a straw-man. Thus, it can be dismissed. The Argument from Humans stands; God does not exist. The Problem Of EvilMy opponent concedes that gratuitous suffering exists. However, he believes that a supernatural being is compatible with gratuitous suffering. This, once more, is problematic. We are not talking about any old supernatural being, but a perfect omnibenevolent being. It entails more benevolence to have all suffering allowed be necessary for some greater good (and not be gratuitous), than it is for there to be pointless suffering that is not for some greater good. Therefore, a maximally good and perfect being would make all suffering necessary for some greater good and not gratuitous. Since gratuitous suffering exists (as my opponent concedes), then via Modus Tollens; God doesn't exist. This premise is widely accepted by Atheists and Theists alike:"Theists usually agree with [if God exists, gratuitous suffering does not exist]" - Nicholas Tattersall[13] This is because is it necessary due to the definition of God. To repeat philosopher Ryan Stringer's quote:"P1 is a necessary truth based on the properties of God. As a morally perfect being, God must have a morally sufficient reason to permit or create evil; for this is part of what it means to be morally perfect. And since 'gratuitous evil' simply refers to evil that God, if he existed, would have no morally sufficient reason to permit or create, he will not permit or create it if he exists. Thus, God's existence entails the nonexistence of gratuitous evil." - Ryan Stringer Summary of Problem of EvilSince Con concedes that gratuitous suffering exists, but it is necessary that this is not the case if God exists; God does not exist in the context of this debate.Divine HiddennessOnce more, God isn't just defined as a supernatural being, but a perfect, and all loving being. An all loving being would want all beings to be able to freely experience him if they try and have an open mind. Since many people have had an open mind, and failed to experience this being; this disconfirms the existence of a perfectly good, all loving being. My opponent cannot say that the argument is invalid, because this argument is valid via Modus Tollens. He just disagrees with one of the premises. However, this disagreement is based on a misunderstanding about who God is if he exists. God isn't just some supernatural being, but an all loving being. This is the difference which makes my argument go though, and gets around Con's objection with ease.Summary of Divine HiddennessCon's rebuttal neglects that God isn't just some supernatural being, but a perfect and all loving being. Thus, my argument goes through; God does not exist. Refuting My Opponent's Argument For God's ExistenceMy opponent says that I previously stated that God caused time. However, I believe I made it clear that my view is that if God exists, he caused time. That is not a concession on my behalf of God's existence. Now, my opponent says that time doesn't exist, it is just a human creation. That is a radical claim that he offered no support for, and it is in no way "obvious". Time is one of the most intimate part of our lives, so if we deny time as real then we might as well deny almost anything as real. Also, if time wasn't real then we couldn't think, as thinking requires the existence of time (as Con himself concedes). If time is an illusion, then change is an illusion. This is impossible though, because it would be a changing illusion! Also, there if something caused the universe, Con have no reason to think it had to be a perfect mind. Therefore, he has not met his burden of proof. He has only argued that "something" must have caused everything we see, but he never defended the notion that this "something" had to be God. Conclusion I provided 4 arguments to show that God doesn't exist. My first argument is based on the fact that a mind has to be able to think and have thoughts, or it isn't a mind. However, this requires a temporal domain. Since God by definition entails that a non-temporal mind is possible when it is not; God does not exist. My opponent's only attempt at refutation involved a circular, and illogical definition. Con's objection to my second argument was based on a misunderstanding of my argument. The rebuttal to the Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness neglects the fact that God is a perfect, and all loving being. Thus, he wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering, and would have everyone be able to experience him. Since these conditions are not met; God does not exist. Con offered only one weak argument for his case, and it didn't even help him support his burden of proof. Something causing the universe, doesn't mean that a perfect mind caused the universe. All my arguments stand. Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[7] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[8] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[9] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[10] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[11] http://dictionary.reference.com...[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...[13] http://www.infidels.org...[14] http://www.infidels.org...