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

Likewise, I need to clear up this misconception my opponent has of what determined "playing semantics". He falsely claims that it is when a contender ignored "an instigator parameters or implied parameters for a debate. " But I ask of him - what part of the word 'semantics' ever implies such a definition? If one were to ignore the instigator's parameters, this wouldn't be semantics. It would violating the placed rules. Instead, "playing semantics" is usually to intentionally abuse terminology. The definition of the word semantics is "the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs[1]. " In laymen terms, semantics is the definition of words. The implied usage of the word playing is to "take advantage of[2]. " Take these two definitions into context, and to play semantics is simply to take advantage of defining words/the definition of words. So is my opponent guilt of this? Definitely. As I have shown, naturalistic pantheism is at a complete mistake of playing semantics, or better known as intentionally abusing terminology. It romanticizes atheism by defining nature or life as "God", even though it adds nothing new. ==================== Which flavor of pantheism is it? ==================== My opponent agrees to defining naturalistic pantheism, so there is no further discussion needed here. ==================== Error in opponent's syllogism ==================== Ah, so my opponent tries to take another path in order to avoid a potentially embarrassing error in logical procedure. Fair enough, I will simply focus on his supposed valid reasoning and demonstrate once again it's erroneous. Since my opponent relies on the second premise on the logical coherency of his argument, let's examine it in detail. "Evidence points to the creation of the universe having occurred as an effect from itself (in other words, created itself, via big bang) At first glance it is seemingly convincing, but when you take it apart bit by bit it becomes obviously false. My opponent is stating that the universe created itself via the big bang. Quickly we can see a contradiction - how can the universe create itself? ! This is like saying something that didn't exist caused itself to exist. My opponent thinks he can rely on this crucial phrase "as an EFFECT from itself", but it turns out that it defeats his side even more. There are several hypothesis concerning the origin of the Big Bang. It can be uncaused (which is the most popular hypothesis) or be the result of some quantum/string theory event. However, no one has ever proposed that the universe created itself - that is logically absurd. My opponent need to realize that the Big Bang is a theory explaining the DEVELOPMENT of the universe, not the cause of it (assuming it had a cause). Fields like quantum gravity discuss this possibility. I stress again, the idea that the universe can create itself is nonsensical. ==================== Playing semantics ==================== Even if my opponent's syllogism succeeds, he still falls prey to playing semantics. My opponent's definition is not false (since in the context of a debate it can be defined), but this wasn't my point. To define nature as god is to say nothing at all. It makes the word "god" a meaningless word, a mere sound. I might as well say "oohblagh" or "fumie" instead of god, and it will be no different. I may understand if naturalistic pantheists add some more characteristics, like if nature is personal or perhaps even sapient. However, to simply reword nature as "God" is to add NOTHING in an intellectual discourse. This is a debate, which is why you may get away with such things. However, in a real philosophical discussion pantheism is nothing more than New Age folly. If someone were to argue that Peyton Manning is God, would they seriously be considered in the intellectual community? Of course not - even if said person were to change NOTHING about the characteristics of Peyton Manning, the only response they would get is that they are abusing the term "God". They are abusing said term because they have stripped it of it's common meaning (an omni-entity), and simply left it as a useless sound. Don't get me wrong, it's fine to redefine "God" from the common monotheistic conceptions. However, to simply strip it of ALL meaning and instead make it a useless synonym is ridiculous. I might as well call all machines "God", or all beautiful women "God". As long as I play with semantics, I can get away with such incoherent conceptions. But you don't see me doing that, do you? Your quote from Wikipedia about naturalistic pantheism does nothing to further it's validity. As I said before, the best that can be said about it is that it's a romanticized way of viewing nature. Besides that, it has nothing to add towards intellectual discussion or progress. It's like being an optimist or pessimist - just different outlook at life. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent is constantly shifting back and forth, avoiding the real issue at hand. His argument for naturalistic pantheism consists of a flawed syllogism and semantics. In fact, at this point the only thing he can really resort to is semantics. There really isn't much more to say, so I will just quote several important claims my opponent makes in his conclusion: "However, as you can see for yourselves, he has dropped this argument entirely and has argued directly in terms of whether or not pantheism is valid. " ----> If my opponent were to read clearly, in my previous round I stated that I changed tactics because I realized my opponent was arguing for a specific religion rather than a metaphysical supreme being. In fact, I shouldn't be at blame since my opponent never stated whether or not he was affirming a). the deity of a specific religion or b). a metaphysically supreme being. He simply offered me a syllogism that gave a vague definition of god, thus forcing me to presume he was arguing for the latter option. "Lets keep in mind that what my opponent is doing is asking you to vote against my arguments based on emotion. " ----> Entirely misleading. No where in my argument did I even hint at such a proposition - you should find that many of my personal beliefs may seem emotionally shocking to people, so why would I resort to emotions now? On the contrary, I gave an ultimatum to the voters. As it is now, I argue that all my opponent can rely on is semantics. This is where the dividing ground for the voters appears. Either they will state that since you "technically won", due to definitions, then they may vote for my opponent. Or they may say that if in the end you can only resort to such tactics, you doesn't deserve the win. Rather than appealing to emotion, I understand that the voters have different takes on what constitutes as a win, so don't accuse me with such a novice error. "Furthermore, I'm upholding a well established viewpoint. " ----> A viewpoint is only well established if the arguments for it are. As of now, all you have is semantics. "To vote me down just because I'm arguing in favor of this well established viewpoint under the guise that I'm "playing semantics" is absurd and is no virtually no different than voting against someone just because you personally don't agree with their views. In other words, this is nothing more than close mindedness. " ----> The that voting against someone because they were playing with semantics is equivalent to biased voting is absurd. If the voters feel that redefining a word and thus pushing the debate's intended trajectory purposefully of course may be a loss on your part, and not mine. It certainly isn't close mindedness, but a different attitude towards who had the better argument. ---References--- 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...