Does God exist ? (part 2)

So I don't have to keep typing the same thing over and over. (Yeah its a bit late now I know) I shall refer to the non personal first cause as Non PFC I shall refer to the personal first cause as PFC --- Countering that the first cause is personal --- --- Redefining what a non personal cause is --- Pro says about the Non PFC "An eternal non-personal entity cannot change. It must either be doing the same thing perpetually or it must be doing nothing. If it is doing nothing, it will cause nothing. If it is perpetual, it must have been designed. " So something that is perpetual MUST be designed eh ? 1) If something is perpetual it is designed 2) God is perpetual 3) Therefore God is designed Pro says "An impersonal eternal first cause, if it is isn't dead, is a perpetual machine without a will. All mindless machines have properties of engineering. Thus, you have to assume the perfect design without a designer. " By redefining the non personal first cause a machine and having engineer properties and being designed, by definition this means that the the non personal first cause has a cause, after all machines are built by a machine maker, a design has a designer and something with engineer properties has an engineer. I didn't release we could just redefine things. Cool I can do that too. .. .. 1) God is a truck 2) Trucks have a designer 3) Thus God has a designer Maybe God isn't a truck, and maybe a non personal first cause isn't a machine with engineering properties with a designer eh ? --- First causes and what they cause --- Pro says "An impersonal eternal first cause must not have a finite amount of things because it begs this question: what caused the first thing? " Cmon Pro, my Non PFC doesn't have a finite amount of things, its CAUSES a finite amount of things, just like your PFC causes a finite amount of things. How many times have we been over this. --- A counter argument --- Here is my counter argument. .. .. A Personal eternal first cause must not have a finite amount of things because it begs this question: what caused the first thing? If that entity is truly Personal, then there are two possibilities. First, the first thing was caused by an external entity, which clearly makes this entity not the first cause. The second possibility is the first thing was caused internally, but this option has its own problems. The personal cause produces no effects for eternity past and suddenly has a first effect? What caused it to choose to change the situation from being the only thing that exists, to choosing a different situation where now something else exists ? (The universe began to exist). 1) An eternal entity does not change (claimed by pro) 2) A Personal entity went from not doing a finite amount of things to doing a finite amount of things because it changed. 3) Therefore, A personal entity that does a finite amount of things is not eternal Compare this to Pros argument which was. .. .. .. P1. An eternal entity does not change. P2. A mechanical entity that does a finite number of things did so because it changed. C1. Therefore, a mechanical universe that does a finite number of things is not eternal. --- Countering Tag --- --- Logic or The three laws of classic logic ? --- Pro talks about logic being "absolute". Logic defined is "Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. .. . Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. " [1] I suspect when Pro says logic is absolute, they are really referring to the three classic laws of thought. According to wikipedia The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are. .. .. .. 1)law of identity 2)law of noncontradiction 3)law of excluded middle [2] --- Logic absolutes have to come from a perfect mind ? --- Pro says "However, if logic is absolute and abstract--that is, it exists independently of ourselves within a single unchanging mind that is universal to all other minds--then the conditions necessary to make logic reliable are in place. " Pro is arguing that we are capable of having logic absolutes in our mind, yet our mind is not perfect. This proves that logic absolutes doesn't need to reside in a "perfect" mind. --- God and Logical absolutes --- Logic absolutes apply to God, cause as Pro says "To be absolute means to be objective and universally applicable to all beings, as opposed to subjective or arbitrary". This is a bit of a problem for TAG, why ? Cause Logic absolutes are dependent on God for their existence (according to Pro) yet God is bound by Logic absolutes. For instance God can't be God and not be God in the same sense. If the universe and its "physical laws" are dependent on God for their existence, then obviously God is not bound to those physical laws, since the laws existence are dependent on God. If A (in this case the universe physical laws) is dependent on X (in this case God) for its existence, then X is not bound by A. But with logical absolutes, God is bound by these logical absolutes, thus they are not dependent on God (or Gods immutable mind as pro calls it) for their existence. Pro says "Logic would not exist without the mind, and to maintain the property of being absolute, it requires a single, universal, immutable mind behind it. " This is an equivocation "thinking about logic" is equated to the actual thing its self. For instance I could be eating an apple, and have the "thought" of the apple, but that thought of the apple is NOT the same as the actual apple. Like wise having the the "thought" of a logical absolute, is NOT the same as the actual logical absolute. At this point I will answer some possible objections that might be raised. --- But God nature is logic or God has the property of logic that's why God is bound to it - Its not that God nature is absolute logic, its just that absolute logic bounds everything that exists, whether man or God. God can't be God and not be God in the same sense, just like a human can't be and not be a human in the same sense. What this tells us is that logical absolutes is a precondition of anything that exists (God included), as opposed to Pros claim that God is the precondition of logical absolutes. --- But God is not dependent on logic absolutes for its existence --- My counter argument never included the claim that God is dependent on logical absolutes for its existence, just that God is bound to logic absolutes (like the rest of us and everything) and thus the contradiction of then claiming logic absolutes is dependent on God for their existence. --- Well how do you explain/account for the existence of Logic absolutes ? --- Even if I didn't have an answer, It would not prove or imply that God exists. The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form: There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore the cause must be supernatural. [3] I could give the same answer, as Pro would when asked to account for Gods existence, well it exists necessarily. Logical absolutes exist necessarily. Closing Arguments I am out of room, so Ill make it brief, when Pros arguments for the existence of God is scrutinized, the arguments are shown lacking, as such should not be accepted. Without a good reason to the contrary Gods non existence is more likely than Gods existence. Vote Con. I thank Pro for participating in this debate. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...