the existence of a Christian God

I for one can't get enough of these. The resolution is neither a positive or negative assertion. Therefore, I argue that burden of proof will fall on both parties. The resolution is equivalent to this interrogative: "Does the Christian God exist? " My opponent is burdened to prove the answer is no as I am equally burdened to prove the answer is yes. It will not be sufficient for him to merely refute my arguments. Both sides must offer proofs for their positions and simultaneously refute the opposition. Since my opponent has yet to offer any arguments, I will dedicate the entirety of this opening round to mine. I will start this debate with the illustration of two scholars convening to debate the existence of air. Both sides offer profound arguments and challenging cross-examination over whether or not air is real. Such a debate would be embarrassing for the debater attempting to prove air doesn't exist since its existence is a necessary precondition for him to debate in the first place. He would be a living contradiction whose argument could only be possible if it were wrong. By showing up to the debate, he's already lost. My opponent is like the man arguing against the existence of air. By asserting that God doesn't exist, he has undermined his ability to rationalize his position. By virtue of taking Con in this debate he has in principle already lost. Debate presupposes logical laws, scientific principles, moral obligation, objective knowledge, human dignity, and so forth. These things are often taken for granted. While both my opponent and I might agree these things are reliable and meaningful, we will still come to conflicting conclusions. This is because our assumptions regarding the nature of these principles differ. The differences in our assumptions reveal a worldview conflict. By instigating this debate and taking Con, my opponent asserts an atheistic worldview, and I the Christian theistic worldview by accepting. Unfortunately for my opponent, atheism as a worldview, cannot intellectually account for the aforementioned principles and ultimately refutes itself. Allow me to demonstrate. My opponent has argued in past debates that the existence of evil contradicts the existence of an all powerful, all good, all knowing, personal God. This argument presupposes absolute morality (evil is objectively wrong), logical laws (the logical law of non-contradiction is universally binding), and linguistic meaningfulness (the terms describing God are universal in there meaning and understanding). Without these principles, the argument fails intellectually. Let's analyze for the moment just the moral aspect. If he appeals to something arbitrary like nature or social standards to define evil, then his argument loses meaning. To prove that the existence of both evil and God is logically impossible, evil must be on the same scale as God. Both must be transcendent and immutable, otherwise, the argument is invalid. If God is defined as transcendent and immutable, then evil defined as man's consensus is not the logical opposite. No, the logical opposite must at least be as transcendent and immutable. His only hope, therefore, is to presuppose an objective moral system. However, atheism cannot appeal to absolute morality. For anything to be objective, it must be accessible. Matter is objective because all mankind can access it. So is energy. In an atheist worldview, where is morality and how do we access it? Remember, it can't be consensus or the Argument from Evil is invalid. Even if he appeals to dualism, the presupposition that morality and other laws are in a reality of their own, he still has the problem of not having access to such an alternate reality. Atheism simply cannot account for the kind of morality necessary to make the Argument from Evil intelligible. The only way for the Argument from Evil to become valid is to presuppose Christian theism. Absolute morality, and thus objective evil, is cogent in the Christian worldview because it is universal, transcendent, and accessible. It's universal and transcendent because God is universal and transcendent, making evil objective as opposed to arbitrary. It's accessible because it's based on God's omnibenevolent character which has been revealed to mankind via his Word. God is the necessary precondition to make intelligible the very thing my opponent would hope to use in his disproof of God. In other words, for the Argument from Evil to even be possible, it must be false. My example focused on morality, but the atheist also struggles to account for the other principles as well. For example, the atheist presupposes that the universe is non-teleological, driven by purposeless forces, but will insist that science brings objective knowledge. However, science presupposes an ordered universe--not a random one--in which the future will behave like the past. Atheism is again caught within a self-contradiction. If science is reliable, then the presupposition of a chaotic universe must be wrong. Yet, the atheist cannot hope to escape this trap by presupposing an ordered universe because the necessary precondition for such a universe is a transcendent and immutable God. The notion that order comes from disorder or--worse yet--nothing is simply irrational. The point is that Christian theism does not have this problem. Scientific principles are made intelligible because both science and theism presuppose an ordered universe, which was created by an ordered God. In the final analysis, atheism cannot rationally account for logical laws, scientific principles, objective knowledge, and absolute morals—the very things my opponent needs to even participate in this debate. Oh, he will certainly use these things, but in so doing, he relies on Christian presuppositions. In this way, he will be like the man arguing against the existence of air all the while breathing it. He can argue for atheism only if it is false. Therefore, atheism is false and the Christian God exists. I turn the floor to my opponent.