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

Ah, I get it now. It seems my opponent wasn't going along with the second option I allowed - affirming the existence of a metaphysical being - but instead he was aiming to fulfill the first option - affirming the existence of any god of any known religion. My opponent states that this debate won't be a fiddle with semantics, or a "simple battle of definitions". Unfortunately, his argument is exactly that. I will show in the following argument that my opponent's god is really a disguised form of atheism - this God of pantheism is no more than an unnecessary sound, adding nothing new to intellectual discourse. ==================== Which flavor of pantheism is it? ==================== There are actually several forms of pantheism, but unfortunately my opponent fails to explicitly state which one he is arguing for. In the Wikipedia article my opponent cites, it lists three main types of pantheism: Classical pantheism, Biblical pantheism, and Naturalistic pantheism. So the question arises, which group of pantheism is my opponent arguing for? The only way is to go into detail which group of pantheism believes in what, and compare it to my opponent's syllogism in his first round (refer to it if you need). Classical pantheism is a theistic form of pantheism. Significant aspects of it is that the god of Classical pantheism is supernatural and is either personal or impersonal, which is why classical pantheism can't be what my opponent is arguing for. As I stated in my previous round, my opponent's syllogism states that the god he is affirming is part of the natural world - since he defines it as the big bang. Thus, classical pantheism is not my opponents position. Biblical pantheism is simply pantheistic beliefs in a Biblical context. Obviously, nothing in my opponent's syllogism even refers to the Hebrew Bible, so this can't be my opponent's position as well. Finally, we come to naturalistic pantheism. It "holds that the Universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole, behaves as a single, interrelated, and solely natural substance." This is seemingly my opponent's position, since he states that the god he is affirming is synonymous with the Big Bang. That being said, I have two points of criticism: ==================== Error in opponent's syllogism ==================== In my opponent's syllogism, there is an error in premise 3; let me re-copy the first three premises: 1) Whatever is responsible for the development of the known universe is to be considered god. 2) Evidence points to the creation of the universe having occurred as an effect from itself (in other words, created itself, via big bang) 3) Therefore, evidence suggest that the known universe is god You see it? There's an error in reasoning between premise 1 and premise 3. The big bang, which my opponent refers to as god, can't be equated to the known universe. If my opponent is arguing for naturalistic pantheism, which is the only viable form of pantheism close enough to fulfill his argument, then he is at a serious error here. The Big Bang is NOT the Universe, it is simply the event that began the development of the universe. Would an engineer be considered a building? Would a painter be considered a piece of artwork? Would a doctor be considered a form of surgery? The answer to each of these questions is an obvious no - and it's the exact same for my opponent's argument. Is the Big Bang considered to be the Universe? Of course not, but my opponent makes this grave mistake. Therefore, his syllogism from the get go is at flaw, and thus his argument amounts to nothing. ==================== Playing semantics ==================== Naturalistic pantheism has one very major flaw, it is an an intentional misuse of terminology. The word "god" has been abused many times, and it seems to manifest when concerning pantheism. To state that "god" is the universe is to say nothing different from atheism. If naturalistic pantheism believes God to be equatable to nature, then what different is it from atheism?! There is no personal God, there is no supernatural entity, and there is no dogma or doctrine to follow. Naturalistic pantheism is absolutely the same as atheism, but with different terminology! In other words, it's semantics. Naturalistic pantheism has nothing to offer when compared to atheism but perhaps a "spiritual-like perspective" of nature. When you tear away at such romanticized thinking, then you come with atheism at it's core. My opponent's argument does nothing but to argue for atheism. However, here I can perhaps predict that my opponent can jump on this. That even though it is playing semantics, it may be seemingly still okay. This is an option I shall leave to the voters. Though I didn't say it explicitly, I did state in my first round that I wanted to "avoid semantics", and it seems my opponent wants to do the same. If that is true, then he needs to account for such a flaw in naturalistic pantheism. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent has made two grave errors. First, he makes a leap of logic in his syllogism; a simple analysis reveals the embarrassing mistake. Second, he is close, if not already guilty, of playing semantics. Whether or not he should be held accountable for this is up to the voters and how he responds. I submit that if all he can resort to is petty semantics, then the fair winner should be me. I eagerly await my opponents response.