God in nature (intelligent design) [Version 2]

Pro makes three arguments for God's existence:1) A Cosmological Argument[1] - by looking at the nature of the cosmos2) The Moral argument - by looking at morals we find in nature3) The Resurrection Argument**I am not sure how this is an argument that entirely relates to "aspects of nature", and I would ask Pro to clarify how this is so. I will not use this as a cop-out and will still undermine it; I merely ask for clarification. I will start with my rebuttals:1) A Cosmological Argument that Pro lays out in the following way:"1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause2) The universe began to exist3) Therefore the universe has a cause. "Now, I would like to clarify what I mean by sound, true, and valid arguments. A sound argument is when the conclusion follows logically from the premise(s). A true argument is when the premise(s) are correct. For an argument to be successful; it has to be valid, which is when an argument is both sound and true. ((I understand people use sound in particular to mean different things, so I thought it was best to clarify. ))While I concede that this argument is sound; I contend that this argument is false. My issue lies with premise one:"Everything that begins to exist has a cause [of its existence]. "This is actually not true. Recently, there have been a series of discoveries made by physicists which have coined the term "virtual particles"[2]. These particles (a. k. a. quantum fluctuations) appear to have no cause whatsoever and pop into and out of existence all the time when in something called a vacuum state! [3] Therefore, we have not only shown the first premise to be false, but have also (apparently) disproven the "Golden Rule of Metaphysics". Since the first premise is false, we have to remove it from the argument, leaving us with:"1) The universe began to exist2) Therefore the universe has a cause. " But this commits a non-sequitur fallacy[4] and makes the argument refuted. My opponent's second argument is the moral argument and he presents it as such:"1) If God does not exist, then Objective Moral Values and Duties do not exist2) Objective Moral Values and Duties do exist3) Therefore God exists"Allow me to present this argument in another way that [I hope] isn't straw manning.1) God does not exist2) Since God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.3) But objective moral values do exist. C) Therefore, God exists. ((It doesn't make a difference but I prefer reductio ad absurdium reasoning. ))First, let me clean up what "objective morality" actually is. Objective morality is: "the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. "[5]Now that we have that out of the way, let's look at the premises. (Since this is reductio ad absurdium reasoning, we have to accept the first premise for us to get anywhere, because it tries to prove the opposite by using it. ) The second has an implication that God is the external source of morality apart from us humans. But all we need do to demonstrate the lack of validity in this is to back up a level. Where does God get his morals from? This is called the Euthyphro Dilemma[6] and can be summed up as follows:"Does God command things because they are moral; or are moral things moral because God commands them? "If the first is true, then the concept of God is refuted right here and now, because God isn't the moral lawgiver after all but follows the morals of a higher power. However, God being maximally great by definition, this is impossible. So we go to the second: "Things are moral because God commands them". If this is true, then morality is subjective after all; God's subjectiveness of what he thinks right morals are determine our morals. But, since morality is subjective after all, the third premise is refuted and the argument collapses. My opponent has to solve this dilemma or the argument fails. My opponent gives his last argument; the argument from the resurrection. This isn't set out formally, per se (until the end), but is given in the form of three facts:"Fact 1: On the Sunday after his crucifixion, Jesus" tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Jacob Kremer, a New Testament historian has stated: "By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb. "" This seems to be an argumentum ad populum; a. k. a. an appeal to/argument from popularity. [7] The reasoning of: "The majority attest that it is correct, therefore, it is correct. " Faulty logic. I would ask my opponent to respond to this. However, let's give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and assume that the tomb was found empty. What appears to be more likely: "The body was taken, or a man rose from the dead"? The naturalistic explanation will take the priority and there are a host of reasons why this could have happened: i) The Jews stole the body - motivations include revenge and a concept of dutyii) The Romans stole the body - precautioniii) The body was never placed into the tomb - no external source gives evidence that the body was ever in the tombMy opponent says these are disproven. I will accept that and concede it when I see it disproved; but my opponent hasn't done so yet. ""Fact 2: On separate occasions, different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to New Testament critic Gerd L"demann, "It may be taken as historically certain that . . . the disciples had experiences after Jesus" death in which Jesus appeared to them as the Risen Christ. "" Again, there is no proof given for this, but is instead an argumentum ab auctoritate[8] (appeal to/argument from authority) and states that since this person (who is acting as the authority) has reached this conclusion it must be true. This is illogical. Again, though, let's give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and attest that this was claimed by all the followers. The human mind is very accepting of things they want to see. When everyone reports it, it can become something called mass hysteria[9], and many examples have been seen. [10] Likely, these events were such examples. "Fact 3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. N. T. Wright, an eminent New Testament scholar, said: "That is why, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him. "" The third "fact" is the most interesting to ponder. However, we seem to be teetering on the edge of "because they say it is; it is" argument here. I would, for the third time, ask for proof instead of quotes. Granting the benefit of the doubt, it is plausible that the mass hysteria effect was seen. Please note that, while I granted the benefit of the doubt, I will dismiss these claims next round unless evidence is provided. Quotes are, unfortunately, not enough to back up a claim and declare it a fact. Thanks in advance! ConclusionsPro has given some interesting arguments for God in nature (apart from maybe the last one, which I asked him to clarify), but I have refuted two of them and undermined the last one. I thank my opponent thus far and eagerly await his response(s). {Maybe I'll get a concession! :O }. See you next round! ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)[5]http://rationalwiki.org...[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...[8]http://en.wikipedia.org...[9]http://en.wikipedia.org...[10]http://listverse.com...