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

He is not only well-versed and rational, but he brings up an interesting argument: TAG. I've no doubt heard about it before - it's recently become the fan favorite among presuppositional apologetics, such as Matt Slick. While it's seemingly convincing at the first onset, in the end it boils down to the level of ridiculousness of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Then again, that's just my personal opinion :). But it is true this argument hasn't been seen as much, so it will be a pleasure to debate about it with KRF here. I accept my opponent's definition of God, and it should no doubt be familiar with the readers (despite it's breathtakingly long description). It is defined to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent (the 4 omni's). He is also described to be tri-une, with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. A very descriptive definition no doubt, and one that is most likely the Abrahamic God most of us are familiar with. From here on out it will be referred to as God for the sake of clarity and of being terse. Finally, one last thing to note. My opponent's argument is composed of three different parts, each a variation of another. Therefore, I will refute each one accordingly by breaking them up. If I refute them individually, then the argument itself is obviously defeated. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes ==================== My opponent believes that only God can account for logic, or rather logical absolutes. Matt Slick's version of TAG is predicated on this idea, and I'm sure it's the same thing my opponent is arguing for - such as the law of identity. My opponent claims that I can't account for logical absolutes. And you are right, to an extent I can't account for all of them, namely the law of identity. A will always equal A, because this is the behavior of all that exists. By now, my opponent is probably teeming with success. I just conceded that I can't account for a logical absolute! But hold on, not too fast. While the atheist can't account for logical absolutes, how much better does the theist fare? From what more do they gain by including in a God? Many say, and I suspect my opponent as well, that we derive logical absolutes from the nature of God itself. But there is nothing in it's existence that sheds light to this! For is not God bound to logical absolutes as well? Not only that, but if we are to assume that God's existence is the focal point of knowledge, then we have serious problems. For theists can't account for several other things of God's attributes. The theist can't account for why God has the attributes he has, and not OTHER attributes. The theist can't account for why God's will is effective instead of ineffective or partially effective. The theist can't account for why God exists instead of not existing. To add "God" as an explanation is of no use. While the atheist can't account for the consistency of nature, neither will the theist when he adds "God" into the formula. To input a being called god is nonsensical and useless. There is nothing about the existence of God or the truth of it's theology that accounts for logical absolutes. Both the theist and the atheist are stuck on the same platform. Essentially, TAG is a double standard. While my opponent accuses me of not being able to account for logical absolutes, he himself is not able to account for God's attributes and consciousness - something he purports to be the foundation for logic. ==================== TAG - Uniformity of Nature ==================== As stated in my previous counterargument, existence behaves consistently with itself. Remember, logic does not govern reality in any way - reality in turn governs logic. Logic is descriptive of reality. As such, the uniformity of nature should come as no surprise. I don't really need to reply to this argument again, because it is inextricably tied with the previous argument. To do so would be redundant. ==================== TAG - Existence of Objective Morality ==================== My opponent's claim that morality can't exist without God is unfounded. There have been many philosophers who have argued quite convincingly for their own formulations of ethics. Take Kant for example, who based his ethics on reason alone. However, today I will not take that path. Instead, I argue that objective morality DOES NOT exist. Being a moral nihilist, I agree with my opponent that objective morality does not exist - but what of it? Does a rational mind need morality to think critically? Of course not. Therefore, this point is moot. We do not need to predicate God's existence to account for objective morality because objective morality does not exist. ==================== Failure of TAG - Non-Unique Proof ==================== Let's suppose all three of my criticisms fail. Even in light of this, my opponent has to pass another obstacle - the non-uniqueness of his argument. As stated before, my opponent has vividly described God in ones that are most familiar with (4 omni's, tri-une existence, etc. ). However, he has NOT shown why this particular God is the only one capable of laying the foundations of logic, making nature uniform, and creating objective morality. It can very well be that another god with different attributes can achieve the same feat. And since there is conceptually an INFINITE amount of possible gods that can fulfill this role TAG is setting out to create, then it does not at all prove my opponent's depiction of God. For of what use do we have of an argument that proves the existence of an infinite - or at least vastly many - amount of "gods"? At best, it could show the downfall of metaphysical naturalism. This is, however, certainly not the resolution of the debate. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Well there you go. I have refuted the three main pillars of TAG, and brandished other another argument as well. If he wants to prove that TAG is successful, then he has to somehow account for God's existence and particular attributes. If he doesn't, then he is placing a double standard on the atheist. Something that is a definite no-no. And remember, even if my criticisms of the three parts of TAG fail, my opponent has to still answer why TAG should prove his description of God, and not any other. With such obstacles in front of him, I eagerly await his response.