Existentialism

Thanks to Pro for his arguments, and, again, apologies for having to pass the last round. I interpret the resolution as being something along the lines of "Existentialism is most likely true". Since that is a positive claim, it means that Pro has the burden of proof, so all I have to do to negate the resolution is successfully refute Pro's arguments. I have two objections to make to Pro's case. == God is not Dead == Pro assumes that God does not exist. I will provide two arguments to demonstrate that assumption to be false. 1. Transcendental Argument In order for us to engage in any sort of rational discourse, it is necessary for us accept the existence of logical absolutes, as we rely on them to reach sound conclusions. My opponent has already conceded that logical absolutes exist by creating this debate, because he is assuming that we can, indeed, engage in meaningful rational discourse. With the existence of logical absolutes established, we are then posed with the question of where they come from. We can clearly observe that, just like mathematical laws, these logical absolutes transcend the physical universe; there is no need for any physical objects to exist in order for statements like "1 2 = 3" or "If A=B and B=C, then A=C" to be true. In other words, they exist independently of the universe. However, this poses quite the dilemma-- if these logical absolutes transcend the naturalistic universe, then how is it possible for them to be explained through naturalistic means? It isn't possible; such transcendental laws can only be rooted in a similarly transcendental source. And since the said laws are purely abstract and conceptual (i.e. mental) in nature, it plausibly follows that they must have originated from a conscious mind of some sort. Thus, we reach the conclusion: a transcendent mind which exists independently of the universe (aka. God), is responsible for conceptualizing the laws of logic which govern reality. 2. Fine-Tuning Argument It is a well-known fact that the universe's physical constants had to be within extremely precise ranges for universe to have ever even existed. According to theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, "If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size," [1]. Similarly infinitesimally tiny ranges of precision are there for a number of other physical constants, including the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity, the ratio of matter to anti-matter, the universe's mass density, and the cosmological constant [3]. Even the most basic knowledge of probability allows us to calculate that the likelihood of all those constants lining up perfectly to result in the universe coming into being "just by chance" (i.e. naturalistically) is so unimaginably small that metaphors fail to describe it. Meanwhile, under theism, it is fairly obvious why physical constants happen to fall into those precise ranges-- because God set it to be that way with the specific intention of creating the universe. Theism provides a FAR more likely context for the existence of the universe than atheism does, so given that the universe does exist, theism is that much more likely to be true. This argument has the additional benefit of showing that God most likely is invested in the future of his creation, as it makes very little sense that he would go through the trouble of fine-tuning the universe to support life only to just stand back and leave it that life to its own devices. Thus, God is probably a personal deity. And with the existence of a personal creator God established, it is highly unlikely that existentialism is true because, as the creator of everything, it would be *God's* values which mattered, rather than ours'. Pro claims that existentialism can co-exist with religion, but he fails to support that claim with anything other than an appeal to authority (Kierkegaard). He is going to have to explain *how* they can co-exist for us to accept that claim. The existence of an objective universal standard like God completely undermines the subjectivism which is so central to the philosophy of existentialism. == Moral Realism == Another huge assumption that Pro's case rests upon is that morality is nothing but a subjective human construct. This is false; I will provide two independent arguments showing that an objective morality does exist, regardless of whether or not God exists. 1. Moral Sense Theory We all have moral impulses; even those who have rejected the existence of morality still feel them just as vividly as anyone else does. Although our moral conclusions may vary quite a bit, humans all still have the same basic intuitions from which those conclusions are derived. Take the example of murder-- we almost unanimously agree that innocent human life is valuable and that taking it away is one of the most unethical things one could do. Yet people still differ in their opinions of things like abortion and the death penalty. Why? It's because pro-life people do not see the fetus as truly being a living human yet, and because pro-DP people do not see death row convicts as being innocent anymore. It's not that either side disagrees that innocent life is valuable, but rather that they have different interpretations of the same objective ethucal code. There are obviously people who have no value for innocent life, and there is a reason why such people are regarded by the rest of humanity as being evil, sociopathic, and deserving of punishment-- because they violate our universal moral sense. Thus, our values are not subjective; the apparent differences between them are the result of our varying approaches to interpreting and applying those values, rather than actual differences between the values themselves. So a universal moral sense does exist among human beings. Where does this come from? One obvious explanation is that God instilled them in us to reflect his own objective moral code. The only other feasible explanation comes from a corollary to logical absolutes and human rationality: in the same way that we have evolved our sense of rationality to be centered around the objective logical absolutes governing the universe, we could also have evolved our sense of morality to be centered around the objective moral absolutes governing the universe. Thus, morality is not at all subjective, and existentialism's most important premise is false. 2. Free Will Pro actually refutes his own case by advocating the existence of free will among human beings, because free will can be used to justify quite a few objective secular ethical systems, such as Libertarianism and Kantian Deontology. Free will makes human beings special in relation to the rest of the universe-- it grants them a sense of moral significance and culpability for their own actions from which various ethical systems centered around rights and human dignity can emerge. Thus, Pro is basically telling us that one of the tenets of existentialism (free will) affirms the existence of objective moral systems... ****** I have exposed two gaping holes in Pro"s case, and thus it fails. Existentialism is most likely false. The resolution is negated . [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...