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

My opponent's reply is equally as quick! It's been a pleasure debating with you KRF, hopefully we can do it more at some other time. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes ==================== My opponent attempts to escape the fallacy of division by simply trying to reword his argument backwards, as if this somehow saves him from a logical fallacy. He states that "TAG argues in the opposite direction", and simply repeats the argument again. The sister sibling of the fallacy of division is the fallacy of composition[1]. It is very similar, and is simply the division fallacy but backwards. Really KRF? If I somehow was mistaken in my presentation of TAG, then why have you not shown the error in my syllogism I put in the previous round? A quick read will show that it is exactly as you have worded it, it's just in a more clear and precise fashion so we can do away with unnecessary words. And once you put it in a syllogism, it becomes quite obvious that TAG commits a common fallacy. >>>"...but if he wants all humans including myself to adhere to strict logical standards, then he should be able to account for those standards. Calling logic an axiom only begs the question."<<< I'm confused KRF, do you know what an axiom is? Calling logical absolutes axioms is not circular reasoning at all. In context of this debate, an axiom is a postulate[2], a statement that isn't proven because it's truth is self-evident. For example, the law of identity is self-evident, because the process of attempting to refute it in fact UTILIZES it's truth! To say that my usage of axioms is circular reasoning is to commit a grave misunderstanding of my argument, and to simply abuse terms. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes - Theism's Inability to Account for God's Existence/Attributes ==================== >>>"God exists BECAUSE he is the necessary precondition for logical absolutes, uniformity in nature, and moral absolutes."<<< But why are logical absolutes, uniformity in nature, and moral absolutes necessary? My opponent falsely believes these are necessarily true of reality without question. Is he saying that it is conceptually impossible for reality to not exist? He needs to realize that whenever you state something is necessary, it has to be contingent on something - there is no such thing as an unconditional necessity. If you state God's existence is necessary for logical absolutes to exist, then you need to show why logical absolutes have to exist. >>>"The many traits of God are logically necessary. He must be merciful, just, righteous, and holy to account for moral absolutes."<<< So even if we are to assume this is true (which you have yet to demonstrate, especially logically speaking), it still does not give us a specific god. Why would this god have to be tri-une, as you have listed? Why can't it be a deistic god? Why can't several gods coexist at the same time?! All these conceptually possible gods can create morality as well, so you have yet to prove the god you are seeking after. >>>"He must be self-sufficient, perfect, unchanging, and omniscient to account for logical absolutes."<<< Again, refer to my previous statement. Why must a god be omniscient to account for logical absolutes? Why can't this god be just a slightly less knowledgeable? Why must ALL THE KNOWLEDGE IN THE UNIVERSE be known for him to account for logical absolutes? Again KRF, there are many holes in your argument. ==================== TAG - Uniformity of Nature ==================== Both my opponent and I agree that the success or failure of this argument depends on the previous one. KRF does make an interesting statement, however: >>>"Suffice to say, merely assuming nature is uniform and logic is absolute while also asserting that "logic is descriptive of reality" has the markings of circular reasoning all over it."<<< Logic is a MAN-MADE creation. It is simply a language we as humans have constructed to reflect reality in a systematic manner. Logic does not dictate reality, reality dictates logic! This is why logic is descriptive of reality - it attempts to reflect the truth of the world. ==================== TAG - Existence of Objective Morality ==================== >>>"Combining moral nihilism with fictionalism is like the man that claims he doesn't have a car but uses it when pretending to drive to work. If the car really doesn't exist, then pretending it exists has no effect."<<< A disingenuous analogy at best. A car needs to exist to have any effect in the world. Moral "facts" do not need to exist to have the concept have an effect in the world. >>>"If I shoot him in the leg and take his wallet, to be consistent, he'll just have to accept that I pretended differently. If he seeks justice, then he no longer pretends."<<< We can set up a system contingent on the golden rule. Morality have been evolutionary adapted because it helps society function better, leading to an overall better health and life for all. Taking the same concept, we can apply this to our laws and such. We don't have to believe in the existence of moral facts to rationally adapt it. >>>"Moral nihilism simply can't be rationally lived out in real life."<<< And this is where my opponent's entire case crumbles. Because EVEN IF it's true moral nihilism would lead to absolute suffering with society in decay, it proves NOTHING of the existence of God. Morality is not a necessary precondition for reality; it is not a necessary condition for the universe to function or to exist. Even if moral nihilism lead to "absurdity", as my opponent claims, it would probably only refer to how we are to live. Having a foundation for morals and having a foundation for reason is two completely different things. >>>"Since moral absolutes exist, they must be transcendent and abstract, for the same reasons as logical absolutes. Therefore, there must be a transcendent, immutable, perfectly good mind behind them."<<< Again, a glimpse at the fallacy of division. Why must a transcendent mind be behind transcend laws of logic? By that same reasoning, only a "tasty and fattening" mind can account for a Snickers bar. ==================== Failure of TAG - Non-Unique Proof ==================== >>>"A god that accounts for logic cannot also be evil since such a god cannot also account for moral absolutes."<<< An entirely erroneous claim. Meta-ethics and logic are QUITE different. Does reality need to function on some basic laws, which we describe as logic? Yes, things such as the consistency of behavior do appear necessary. Does reality, however, need morality? NO - it's very possible that we can have a universe devoid of life, thus meaning morality is nonexistent. >>>"A god that is not omnipotent would be subject to logical absolutes and therefore could not account for them."<<< And why is this? Why can't a god who is only slightly less than omnipotence account for logical absolutes? ==================== Conclusion ==================== A great debate, though I fear my opponent has severe misunderstandings in how logic, and even certain fallacies, work. He claims that several of my arguments and statements are self-refuting or circular, but it is his own arguments that are so. He abuses the word "necessary" without further thought; doing so will lead him to erroneous conclusions multiple times (as shown). He does not realize that logic is simply a man-made language to describe the consistency of nature. I am quite displeased, not at my opponent, but at the character limit. I tell the audience to focus their attention on TAG committing a fallacy (my opponent has yet to respond to my syllogism), and the non-uniqueness of TAG. He takes a lot of things for granted - why can only OMNIPOTENT gods account for logic? Why not a god who is only slightly less powerful? ---References--- See comments.