the existence of a Christian God

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. " Technically the burden of proof is on you. It is not my responsibility to prove non-existence. Me tearing down you arguments ought to be enough for me to win, but to prevent conflict that would lessen our time for debate, I will present some arguments as well. "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. " Well it would be embarrasing to try to disprove something that has already been PROVEN to exist and contributes to your very existence, like trying to disprove the existence of fetuses. Okay I got you, but I don't see how this pertains to your argument yet. "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. " Well, god hasn't been PROVEN to exist. "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" Bring it on buddy. "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. " How is what I'm wondering. Let me examine further so I can properly criticize. "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. " No. What I was saying in my previous debate is that good fruit cannot bare bad fruit. If something all loving, all knowing (of course implying they already knew the future), and all powerful were to create something, how or why would it be evil, and why would there be suffering? He's like an apple tree making bannanas: it just doesn't make sense. They don't both have to be transcendent or immutable either. It's just the assertion that something that all good created everything and knew the past, present, and future, just so happened to create something evil. It is if anything a logical contradiction making the assertion invalid. "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. " Your right, atheism cannot appeal to absolute morality. Atheism itself is mearly lack of belief in a deity. Also, you forget that atheism is not a religion, so in itself has no beliefs or values. However that doesn't mean that an atheist lacks beliefs or values, it just means they just don't look to religion for it. In your argument you imply that the only way to have any intelligence is through some kind of deity, but has yet to give any evidence as to why. For what I know, it is a simple argument from lack of imagination. I cannot imagine how morality or intelligence can exist without a Christian god, therefore the Christian god must have been the reason why there is morality and intelligence. Before I continue, let me make one more point. Atheism is not just lack of belief in one deity (monotheism), but can account for lack of belief in many (polytheism). So, do you believe in the gods from the greek mythology? . http://en.wikipedia.org... Or the egyptian mythology? . http://en.wikipedia.org... Why not? Oo They were theists (as apposed to atheists). They thought that the only possible explaination for their existence and for moral laws was because of. .. . this whole list of gods. Their arguments is just as valid as yours are. Prove to me how your ideology is superior to theirs, and how you're right and they're wrong. If you don't then I'm with these guys, as the Christian god doesn't exist, I could say that the greek gods do. :) "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. " Like I said before, I will say again. .. . you have no proof. Your argument is one from lack of imagination. You cannot explain to me how you certainly know that this god exists, but you still insist that he does because there is no possible explaination for morality to exist. If there is no other possible explaination, why can't you explain his existence in the first place. And as far as god's character being revealed to mankind through his word, let me ask you a question: The other gods that I mentioned above, did they reveal themselves to mankind through their words? To me, the Christian god is not the answer, but these gods above are, and if you don't need to prove yourself then I am just as right as you are. I am running out of space to type (70 characters left) To summarize, the existence of a christian god is unwarranted :)