Quick Disproofs of God: Argument from Entropy

1. Entropy affects everything
2. If God exists, he must be perfect
3. If God was perfect at any time, then entropy means that he is not perfect after that point.

Therefore God is not perfect and thus cannot exist.

I think that the obvious point of argument on this one is the first premise, that entropy affects everything.  However, there is really no evidence that there is anything that is not affected by entropy.  You'd have to basically prove that there are things that are not subject to entropy.

Also, just an observation, there's no evidence that entropy is limited to just the universe.  It may be an absolute inviolable law.  So even if God was "outside of time and space" there isn't any evidence that he isn't subject to entropy.

Quick Disproofs of God: Argument from Morality

1. If God exists, then there is objective morality.
2. If objective morality exists, then it must be apparent to all people, or at least all followers of God.
3. If there is any change in morality over time in the societies that base their morality on God and the Bible, then there is no objective morality.
4. Morality has changed over the last two thousand years, even among the followers of God.

Therefore, there is no objective morality, and there cannot be any being that has objective morality.

Some may suggest that societal morality is a bad baseline to judge the existence of objective morality, in which case society can actually be swapped out for any specific person that claims to have objective morality and someone else they agree to have objective morality (such as Jesus Christ).  As long as the morality of that person is slightly different than the morality of Jesus Christ, there is no objective morality.

Quick Disproofs of God: Ontological Argument

1. If God exists, he must be perfect.
2. If he is perfect, he must be objectively perfect.
3. Objectively perfect things do not exist.

Therefore, God does not exist.

Obviously the premise that most theists will have an issue with is the third one, but it appears to be quite true: There are no things that everyone could agree would be perfect.  Zero.  The more "perfect" something is judged to be, actually, the less chance it has of actually existing.  Therefore, it would be logically impossible for an objectively perfect being to exist.

A thought that is entirely internal to the framework of Christian logic

I don't think that Andrew Wilson really understand what "sin" is, at least in the context of this clip. He badgers Ron to admit that homosexual sex is a sin, which Ron doesn't want to say because Ron knows that admission is damaging to his relationships with gay people (absolutely true, because gay people have been so long singled out as special sinners). However, Andrew doesn't acknowledge that heterosexual sex is very often a sin to God too and that men can commit the same sin just by looking with lust at other women (Matthew 5:21-30). All men, heterosexual or homosexual are sinners in the view of God, and I suspect that it would not be too great a leap to say that all men are sexual sinners in the view of God.

So he's asking Ron if homosexuality is a special sin, one that must stop when accepting Jesus Christ to the extent that many preachers lie and say that God will remove the temptation. Obviously that's wrong, because salvation doesn't work that way. Accepting Jesus doesn't stop men from lusting or coveting or anger, and those states of mind are, in the words of Paul, just as bad as the sins themselves. Christians have to accept that in accepting Christ, they will find salvation after they die, and in their efforts to live better lives on Earth, He will help them live better but not perfect lives.

My question is then, what life better exemplifies that of a Christian with homosexual attraction? Drugs, casual sex, and suffering the persecution of the church, or the embrace of the church and blessing of a stable sexual partnership in a homosexual marriage?

My final thought on this conversation is that Jesus said: "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." The context was divorce, a sin, but it seems to me that those who actually know gay people know that they may habe been joined to their loving same sex partners by God. Let no one demand the separation of two gay men or two gay women as a prerequisite to joining the fellowship, as they have also been joined together by God.

Quick Disproofs of God: Cosmological Argument

1. The universe exists
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Time also began when the universe began
4. The idea of being "created" requires linear time to have meaning
5. There was no concept of linear time "before" the big bang (indeed, even the concept of "before" the big bang is meaningless)

Therefore, the concept of "creating" the universe is meaningless.  Even if something was required to "create" then universe, that concept is negated by the fact that time began at the beginning of the universe.

This argument also covers the similar argument that God could "cause" the universe.  The idea of causation requires temporal dependence ("this action causes that result" requires the action to occur before the result) and therefore it is meaningless to say that anything "caused" the universe.

The subsequent premises are something to the effect of:

6. If the Bible is true, then God must exist (and conversely, if it is false, then the Bible's particular idea of God must not exist)
7. The Bible says that God created the universe

Since the idea of creating the universe is meaningless, then the Bible is wrong and God can't exist in that form.