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

"I was actually referring to the specific individuals my opponent is referring to you when he says that it accounts for some. Just because one can create an alternative does not make it so." ----> We can both agree that there are cases of some people's experiences being warped by illusions, the fallibility of the brain, and things happening in their environment that may have tricked them (the night, a forest, etc.). However, I do realize that this would barely account for even a minority of the experiences and believers; this was just to certify that a few experiences are like hallucinations. The great majority of experiences is where my core argument tackles. "I have experienced God, therefore God must exist." ----> False premise, you have yet to prove how instead of experiencing God, you experience what you perceive to be God or his workings. My opponent tries over and over to hit this point again, but it's obvious from the start that the main premise, that he is experiencing God, is what is at issue. ~Counterarguments~ 1. Anecdotal Evidence A. Falsifiability and Evolution/Big Bang My opponent has digressed from my original point, which is about the falsifiability of anecdotal evidence. Of course, if he argues that scientific evidence mustn't be the criteria for proof, then of course falsifiability does not matter. But if I show scientific evidence to BE the only criteria, then falsifiability is definitely a point for my side. "My opponent's defense of Macro evolution and the BBT can be used to defend the very notion he negates - since he IS arguing that many people use experiences to confirm the inference of God. If God is taken as a theory, certainly experience OF him only helps to validate this theory. Let me again remind my opponent that not all evidence is scientific." ----> This is wrong in many ways. First of all, how exactly did my defense of Evolution and the Big Bang have anything to do with experience? I stated examples of how they were replicated, and reasons for their falsifications. Note, that even if it is true that experiences are part of how we validate the theory of evolution and big bang, there are still OTHER pieces of evidence that support it. If we only had anecdotal evidence, then it will definitely not pass as scientific. As I've stated before, people do not experience GOD, but rather what they perceive/think is God. My opponent has yet to fulfill his burden of showing why people do not experience what they perceive to be God, but God himself. B. Different types of evidence, and why scientific evidence is valid only Using the same link my opponent used for evidence [1], I will lay out different types of evidence and show why only scientific evidence is suitable. Law - figures out the truth of individual cases. Law can't be used, as my opponent so did, because even though it does use eyewitness testimonies, it's used for a much different reason. I listed three reasons in my previous round (one's that haven't been refuted). Besides those three, we can use DNA and forensics, and that's scientific. But DNA and fingerprints will always be the same, in the sense that we can use the same scientific techniques, and we have evidence to show how DNA can implicate a suspect. However, for most cases the crimes are different, as is the perpetrator and the situation. We don't have some scientific theory to explain every possible scenario for a robbery. Eyewitnesses' are used exactly for this; when science and reason can't fill in some gaps. Of course, as I've said in the previous round, eyewitness testimonies still go through mechanisms the court of law uses to test it's validity. Software and Statistics - I think it's safe to say that both I and my opponent realize that the methods to (a) identify a software's version and (b) statistical inference is not relevant to this debate. History - historians use the historical method [2] and primary/secondary sources. Once again, not relevant to the topic at hand. Note that while they do garner eyewitness accounts, its because (a) they don't have much else to work with many times, (b) the events described in eyewitness accounts that historians use are not ones pertaining supernatural events, for do you read in any history books the endeavors of a supernatural being? Logic - not so much evidence, but it's definitely a way to argue for the validity of something. My opponent employs somewhat of a syllogism, with the following: "I experience God, therefore God must exist". Of course, the contention is that NO, you do not experience God, but what you experience what you perceive to be God. This is my opponent's burden to show otherwise. Science - figures out how the physical world and natural phenomena works. I would say scientific evidence is the best suited in relevance to this topic. If my opponent insists on some other criteria, then he has yet to show which one. 2. Other flaws with my opponent's argument A. Reductio ad absurdum My opponent has a grave misunderstanding of the appeal to consequences fallacy. An appeal to consequences fallacy is when one asserts the truth claim of a premise by based on it's consequences. If P, then Q will occur. Q is undesirable. Therefore, P is false [3]. As you can see, my argument has nothing to do with that. My usage of reductio ad absurdum still stands, because I'm not saying "if your argument is true, it will validate X, and X is undesirable, therefore your argument is false". Instead, what I've been stating all along, is that "if your argument is true, it will validate X, but we know X is not true, therefore your argument is false". There is a clear difference between these two concepts. My argument still stands. Any rational scientist will tell you that anecdotal evidence for UFO's and Bigfoot is farce, and until real evidence comes along, these argument should be thrown away. Similarly so should we treat my opponent's argument from religious experience. ALSO, my point that pseudo scientific claims have fewer claims because the naturalistic explanations to them confine them to certain places still stands. You can claim to have an experience with God EVERYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYWAY. With Bigfoot for example, most experiences take place in North American forests, because most likely the sightings are of bears or many other types of animals. B. Conflict of religions I'd hate to this, but I will drop this point. My character limit restricts me from spelling out my argument. However, I will make two things clear: that (a) he has yet to show how the experiences of those people are of a god, and not what they perceive to be a god, and (b) that he has yet to refute my claim that subjective validation is the cause for many of these personal experiences people cite as evidence. C. Young children Showing a site of ex-Christians does nothing for my opponent. Of course, not 100% of all children that are taught religion early will become religious, but many will [4]. D. Caveman analogy This analogy fails in many ways. First of all, we know fire exists by evidence independent of anecdotes. Also, I would not state their clashing interpretations disproves the existence of fire, but fails to PROVE there is a fire. Finally, people who experience a god don't SEE him, they interpret events. ~Conclusion~ My opponent's argument fails in two ways. He fails to show how people who experience god aren't actually experiencing what they PERCEIVE to be god, and he fails to show what other type of evidence we should consider when evaluating his argument. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://books.google.com...