The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1G

Thanks to my opponent for the challenge. Per my opponent's instructions, I will define the God whose existence I am defending. God is complex and requires a complex definition, so I quote the Westminster Confession of Faith [1]: ----- There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. ----- I will put forth one argument as I am certain this single argument will require ever increasing amounts of exposition, and I wouldn't want to compete for space with other arguments. Moreover, I very much enjoy this argument as it is not as well known as the other common ones. The argument I propose is the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence, or TAG [2], and I stand in affirmation that the argument is valid. The argument begins with the premise that truth is objective. Truth, being that which affirms reality as it is, is the desired goal of academic pursuit. Debate falls within this pursuit, and it stands to reasons that, if debate is not seeking objective truth, then it is a vain endeavor. For this reason, strong agnosticism and other forms of skepticism are refuted at the outset on the basis that they are self-refuting and lead to absurdity. The claim that truth is not objective is itself an objective truth claim and can only be true if it is false. To obtain objective truth, academic pursuit relies on the principle that logical reasoning, scientific induction, and moral obligation are all capable of attaining objective truth. In order to do so, these principles, which are often taken for granted, must be abstract and absolute, as anything else reduces to absurdity. If logical reasoning is conventional, then it cannot affirm anything more than conventional knowledge. If nature is not uniform, then science cannot affirm anything more than present observations. If morality is subjective, then it cannot affirm anything more than ethical suggestions. In short, unless these principles are universally binding and abstractly independent from human thought, all debate philosophically leads to utter skepticism. So, for debate to be intelligible, logic must be necessarily true, the universe must be uniform, and morality must be universally binding. TAG asserts that God (as defined herein) is the necessary precondition for these principles, and is proved via the impossibility of the contrary. This God is the only precondition that can justify immutable logic, uniformity in nature, and moral objectivity, for He is perfectly true, immutable, transcendent, righteous, holy, infinite, and so forth. Without Him, these principles cannot exist in the state in which debate requires them. That is to say, without God, logic becomes conventional, scientific induction becomes unreliable, and morality becomes mere opinion, which brings us back to the problem described in the preceding paragraph. The result is that any debater attempting to disprove God ultimately relies on principles that can only be justified if his/her position is wrong. To say it very succinctly, God exists because without His existence it is impossible to know anything. I'll close my opening round here and allow my opponent to offer rebuttals. I'm sure his cross-examination will produce plenty of further discussion. 1. http://www.reformed.org... 2. http://www.butler-harris.org...