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

Not only does he respond in quick fashion, but his arguments certainly hold weight. It's great to debate an opponent who doesn't resort to simply reiterating opposing claims. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes ==================== >>>"Being immutable, they must be transcendent, existing outside an ever changing cosmos and within another unchanging reality. Being also abstract, they must also be products of thought. The precondition, therefore, for logical absolutes is a transcendent, unchanging, and rational mind. God meets these preconditions in every way."<<< My opponent does here what is commonly called the fallacy of division. The fallacy of division "is committed when a person infers that what is true of a whole must also be true of its constituents and justification for that inference is not provided."[1]. For example, look at this following syllogism: P1 - Humans are made up of atoms P2 - Atoms can't be seen by the naked eye C - Therefore, humans can't be seen by the naked eye The problem is the fallacy of division, of course humans can see each other! Let me break down his argument for you in a simple syllogism as well: P1 - Logical absolutes are immutable P2 - Logical absolutes are transcendent P3 - Logical absolutes are abstract P4 - Logical absolutes are conceptual (of the mind) C - Therefore, the mind that conceives of logical absolutes is transcendent, immutable, and abstract. See what I mean? Fallacy of division, it's hard to spot but it's very common. >>>"It is not necessary to show why God has some attributes and not others, or why he exists. All I must show is that he exists."<<< Unfortunately, my opponent has completely passed by this important point I have made. The reason why TAG fails is that it creates a DOUBLE STANDARD upon the atheist. Because while atheism can't account for logical absolutes (since they are axioms), neither can the theist. So that is to say that neither worldview has an answer, which is why TAG fails. And the reason the theist are on the same playing field as atheists is because they say logical absolutes are derived from God (supposedly from his "nature"). However, in turn theists CAN'T account for God's existence or his particular attributes! So if theists can't account for the entity which supposedly lays the foundation for logical absolutes, have they really accounted for anything more than the atheist? Of course not - they just simply pushed it back a step and placed an unnecessary middle man labeled "God". I shall now demonstrate this very important argument in the following sub point: ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes - Theism's Inability to Account for God's Existence/Attributes ==================== As stated before, theists attempt to account for logical absolutes by reverting to God. However, if they account for God's existence of attributes, then what "accounting" have they done? None at all. Therefore, I will show that theists are unable to account for God's existence and his specific attributes: - The theist can't account for God's existence because they believe he was an uncaused entity. That being so, there is no way to account for WHY he exists instead of not existing. Is it not conceptually possible that in another reality he does not exist? Even if we are to assume that nothing else would exist if he did not, would it still not be conceptually possible in another reality that God does not exist? It very could well be. Therefore, the theist is already stuck at the problem for accounting God's existence. Not very good when you say logical absolutes are derived from God. - In my opponent's definition of God, terms such as "merciful" come up. But it makes one wonder - why does God have these specific attributes? Why does he not have OTHER attributes instead? Why is he not vengeful instead of merciful, or bitter instead of loving? The problem is that he is supposed to be UNCAUSED, therefore there is no intelligible way for the theist to accommodate for God's specific attributes, emotions, and desires. Effectively, he states that God's nature is random - since it could very well have been otherwise. Is he really saying that logical absolutes are...random? You see, if my opponent wants to use TAG to give a theistic account for logical absolutes, then he relies on the nature and existence of God. However, if he similarly can't account for God's nature or existence, then what has he done? Absolutely nothing, which is why TAG is not valid at all. ==================== TAG - Uniformity of Nature ==================== This point really doesn't need to be discussed further. I, the atheist, argue that logical absolutes are axioms, and therefore inherently unaccountable. My opponent states that the theist can account for it via God's nature. As such, this entire discussion throws us back into the previous argument, which does not need to be addressed. ==================== TAG - Existence of Objective Morality ==================== >>>"Debate relies, quite often, on moral absolutes...But when a resolution states "should" or "should not," then we are taking a moral position.<<<" And what reason do you have to not say these are misguided debates? Let's suppose someone argued we shouldn't watch porn because it is immoral. Can I not intelligibly argue that there is no such thing as immoral, therefore his/her statement is false? Indeed it is - just because many debates focus on ethics does not mean ethics has any foundation. >>>"Granted, he analyzes prostitution from an amoral position within the debate, but he does so in order to prove that prostitution's current status of being illegal is wrong."<<< Yes, wrong in the sense that it's an economic waste to make it illegal. Nothing to do with morality, really. And even if I did argue it under the context of morality, so what? Ever heard of devil's advocate :D? >>>"The point is that moral nihilism cannot be actively lived out. If there are no moral absolutes, then any statement of moral obligation is meaningless. "<<< This is where it gets tricky. While it's true I don't believe in moral obligations, in the manner they are traditionally thought of, I do partake in a form of moral fictionalism[2]. This basically entails that while we do not believe in the literal concept of morality, I abide by it (and I use this term very sparingly due to character limits) to avoid the harmful effects of a lawless land. I encourage my opponent to do some outside reading on this to get a better feel of what I mean. >>>"If I start denying the law of non-contradiction, he is likely to rebuke me for doing so. And if he doesn't, then I can win using any irrational tactic I choose."<<< I'd rebuke you not because it was "wrong" or "immoral" of you, but because it is irrational of you. When did academic mistakes become moral crimes? There is nothing about moral absolutism that relates to God's existence. ==================== Failure of TAG - Non-Unique Proof ==================== >>>"Only a transcendent, immutable, rational God meets the criteria. It doesn't matter how many gods we fabricate with the same characteristics, since in so doing we are still referring to the SAME god."<<< Untrue. Can't there be another God who can fulfill the prerequisites of logical absolutes, but be EVIL at the same time? Can't there be another God who is not omnipotent? Can't there be another God who is not omniscient? Definitely so, and they wouldn't be the same god as my opponent defines. A dog and lion can both fulfill the prerequisite of scratching humans, but they aren't the same animal. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My character limits are restricting me, so no recap here. It should be quite obvious where my arguments land. I await my opponent's response eagerly. ---References--- 1. http://www.nizkor.org...