There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

Thanks to petersaysstuff for instigating the debate. I also want to thank him for making it three rounds for the benefit of our readers.Defense of Argument 1. This is a logical argument. Pro is tasked to refute an argument, so I gave him a logical one. 2. Pro must use logical laws to refute this argument. My argument requires logical (philosophical) refutation, not evidential refutation. 3. In order for the refutation to be meaningful, logical laws must be abstract and absolute. My opponent has listed several mathematical facts which will remain true everywhere for all time. Indeed, I agree this is true. I would never argue that logical laws are, in fact, malleable. Indeed, I'm sure everyone would agree they are not. That's my point. I am seeking to give a philosophical account for this fact. To say that man fabricated these laws does not account for the fact that they would be valid even if man hadn't thought of them in the first place. In fact, notice Pro's own words, "We discovered and formulated the laws that my opponent concedes are logical absolutes." Discovered and formulated? If we discovered them, then we must not have formulated them. Moreover, discovery implies the laws exist independently of human thought. My opponent may not see the folly in his words, but I do hope the readers are more discerning. Of the two positions in this debate, I am giving a philosophical account for logic and my opponent wants to take it completely for granted. He says logical laws never change, but he never explains why. 4. In order for logical laws to be abstract, they must be the product of thought, i.e., a mind. I am beginning to suspect my opponent has misunderstood the notion of logical laws. When I speak of logical laws, I am speaking primarily of the three classic laws attributed to Aristotle: the Law of Identity, the Law of Noncontradiction, and the Law of Excluded Middle. [1] That is, laws that govern reason. The Law of Gravity is not a logical law; it is a law of physics. But since Pro brought it up, let's consider the similarities. In both cases, the law holds true no matter how much people think otherwise. To say then, that laws of logic are a human convention, is to undermine the utter independence of these laws. As Pro so aptly put it earlier, these laws are discovered. In response to my critique that Pro is really giving another name to God, he says that he is merely trying to provide an alternative immutable entity, i.e., a computer. He says I am appealing to a false dichotomy, but I insist this is not the case. I am logically concluding the necessary precondition for abstract, absolute logic. For it to be absolute, it must come from something immutable. For it to be abstract, it must come from a mind. For it to be logic, that immutable and abstract mind must be rational. A computer is not immutable if it is a physical computer in this cosmos because all physical computers decay. Therefore, even a physical super-computer cannot uphold the laws indefinitely. The only way such a computer would not decay is if it were super-natural. Furthermore, if the computer were not rational, then such a complex thing could only produce the laws of logic if some other being that is rational imbued those laws into it. If it is a rational computer, than we are ultimately talking about the same immutable thinking being. My opponent says the programmer is irrelevant, but this just begs the question. He wants to win the debate by saying a computer fits the bill, but wants all criticism regarding this theory taken upon his word alone. So, while Pro is insisting I do not understand his refutation, I am insisting he doesn't understand why his refutation falls woefully short. His theoretical computer is not a mind. It is not a sufficient precondition for logical laws. It is arbitrary. It lacks philosophical support. 5. In order for this mind to produce absolute logical laws, it must be immutable. Pro says over and over that he has shown my premise is flawed. Since I am asserting his rebuttal is flawed, it will be up to the readers to decide. I will, however, say this. He says logical laws come from a normal human mind despite earlier claiming they were discovered only to later assert that a computer can fabricate them. Pro's position is arbitrary and unfocused. 6. In order for this mind to be immutable, it must transcend nature (i.e., supernatural) and be unchanging. "I am saying that computers CAN produce logical laws." I am being accused of straw man tactics, so let me be as simple as possible. If the computer is in a server warehouse in California, a computer cannot account for logical laws because it is not immutable. All physical objects decay over time. If the computer is in a non-decaying existence outside of our cosmos, then what exactly is this computer? If it thinks, is unchanging, and exists independently of our universe, than how is it anything more than a different name given to God himself? Furthermore, it's a tad hypocritical for Pro to criticize me for only defining God in this debate when he can't even give us a concrete notion of what this computer is or why we should accept it as plausible. He just keeps saying, "a computer did it." Ipse dixit. 7. The God of the Holy Bible meets the necessary precondition for an unchanging, supernatural mind. A computer simply fails this test as I've had to repeat throughout this round. God is rational. He is eternal. He is unchanging. He thinks. He is good. He is self-existent. He is reliable. All these qualities provide the best philosophical account for why logical laws are universally binding, ever present, and unmoving. Pro has not offered a philosophically defensible alternative. Just because he can imagine an alternative and stick with it through thick and thin is to argue from imagination. 8. In order for Pro to refute this argument, God must exist. I did address Pro's I-am-God argument when I dismissed due to the fact that it attempts to refute point 8 in isolation. Point 8 is meant to follow points 1 through 7. If Pro can refute my argument, it does not prove him to be God, that would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent. So the readers know that I did respond to Pro, here is a copy/paste from round two: "If points 1 through 7 hold true, then logic is valid only because God exists. Therefore, any argument negating his existence is self-refuting, that is, they can only be true if they are false. My opponent is using logic laws, of which he cannot account, to refute the God that makes those very laws meaningful." Conclusion Pro is certain his computer theory blows my argument out of the water, yet he hasn't proffered his own account for the reliability of logic. He keeps saying human minds think it or a computer produces it, but he doesn't explain why such entities are able to maintain the immutability of logic. In fact, if you re-read his arguments, you can see that operates on the assumption that logic is and always will be reliable. In most cases, such an assumption would be valid. However, since the laws of logic are central to this debate, such an assumption begs the question. I once again thank the readers for taking time to vote thoughtfully. While you are permitted to vote any way you wish, I truly hope you see the merits of my case and vote and my favor. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...