These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1C.

I was afraid my opponent would miss the deadline, but it looks like he came by just in the nick of time. Unfortunately, we have reached the "infinite loop" part of the debate, so its a good thing this is the last round. The word of the day is "axiom". This is where all of our disagreements come from. When I was talking about axioms, I specifically mentioned that certain beliefs are like "axioms of a formal system", for the very purpose of making sure my opponent didn't think that when I said axiom I meant "something we can't deny because denying it would require we accept it to be true". An axiom in the sense I'm using is a statement who's truth value can not be determined from any other set of axioms. A set of axioms defines a "system", and within this system, one can generate many propositions by taking those axioms and combining them to form theorems. It's a simple concept, but extraordinarily important to understand. No statement can be true or false on its own, it can only be true or false within a system (or what you might call a context). Whether 2+2 equals 4, 22, or 11 depends on the system we are using. Sometimes we don't even know whether or not a statement follows from any other axioms, and sometimes we can actually prove that it doesn't. My opponent's problem is that he essentially does not believe in any axioms other than A=A. He believes that, given enough time, one can break any logical statement down into applications of the law of identity. I can't blame him for believing this, I believed it with all my heart when I was younger, and the most brilliant minds in philosophy and mathematics believed it up until the 20th century. I would implore my opponent to try and derive the "Argument from Evil" from the law of identity and elementary logical operations. He believes this can be done, but if he were to actually try it, he'd find it to be a much more formidable challenge than he expected. Whether my opponent realizes it or not, his argument depends on many axioms. Thus, a person who doesn't believe in these axioms will not be convinced. Now a brief lightning round: >>>A rational basis means having adequate reasons. This definition is circular. >>> All of logic trace back to the Law of Identity, or that A=A. Well, if you believe this, don't ever study formal logic. Your head might asplode. >>to call free will an axiom is to abuse this term. An axiom is something we can't deny without at the same time using it's truth in the process. Already discussed. >>>While free will may seem to be a major part of Christian theology, it's not a necessity….. It's been seen so many times in the Bible where God DOES interfere with free will. He kills entire towns, this conflicts with the free will of people Free will doesn't mean the ability to do whatever one wills. That's omnipotence. >>>Secondly, you have no evidence or justified reason to believe that it was God's "axiomatic will" to make us in his image but in a "lite" version. An assertion at best. I told you this was a proposed axiom, which we could debate in more detail except that it would take as much time as this debate we're having here. My job isn't to prove that God exists but to prove that there is are plausible scenarios where your argument doesn't apply. >> Either it is logically impossible [to create a world without natural disasters], which you have not shown, or God does not desire for unnecessary suffering to go away, which you have not shown. Either those two, or you can attempt to argue that natural disasters are not unnecessary suffering, which you have also failed to do. I have already stated that it is impossible to prove whether or not God could make a world without natural disasters. If my opponent's argument depends on this, then it must be added as a premise to the argument. My opponent believes that God desires a micro-managed universe. We can rationally argue that he doesn't because the universe is NOT micro-managed, things happen according to natural laws and God doesn't seem to have any desire to come along and magically make everything perfect through direct intervention. The reason must be that God follows the "Principle of Elegance". He set up the rules of the system and let the system run on its own, intervening only at key points and otherwise letting humanity decide the course of its destiny. If you take my opponent's arguments to their logical conclusion, the very fact that nature operates by laws and not direct intervention is itself irrational! All of my opponent's arguments hinge on the assumption that "God loves Man" implies "God must maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain of man", which my opponent has whole heartedly admitted. In no way does that conclusion follow from that premise. Love involves a whole lot more than just making someone happy. If happiness was all God desired, why give us bodies at all? Why not just create conscious entities that simply feel the maximum amount of pleasure constantly? This situation should sound absolutely absurd to any thinking person. My opponent also believes that suffering is a scalar quantity, when it is actually relative. "X+1 pain" is a completely absurd idea. Finally, I'll return to the teacher analogy, where it seems my opponent DOES understand the point of it, but doesn't realize it for some strange reason. Yes, it would be absurd for a teacher to simply give everyone 100, despite her desire for everyone to score well, because that desire is simply a derivative of the more foundational desire for her students to learn. This my opponent understands completely. The application of the analogy is that a teacher giving her students 100 would be like God making humans believe in him. Someone my opponent couldn't make that connection. In conclusion, my opponent is clearly very intelligent for his age but he has a ways to go (as does everyone else). One day, his belief that all logical statements must follow from A=A will come crashing down, as it did for me. I only hope that I can pry my opponent's mind open a little more and show him there is a whole lot more to reason than he thinks. There are rational theists, who could school both me and you when it comes to logic, and there are rational atheists who can do the same. Is one of these groups simply being illogical, too blind to understand the truth of their opponent's arguments? Hardly!