"Does God Exist," Redux - A-ThiestSocialist has failed to prove that God exists

In the recent debate, "Does God Exist?", A-ThiestSocialist proposed to "prove" that God exists, through several supposedly logical arguments. He "won" that debate, by virtue of his opponent forfeiting all rounds - which was in my opinion unfortunate, as this meant that the arguments proposed were never really analyzed. I believe these arguments are all fatally flawed, and that in fact A-ThiestSocialist (hmmm...I need to ask about that name) failed to prove his point. Note that I am initially challenging A-ThiestSocialist to debate this, so that he has an opportunity to defend his own arguments. If he should choose not to do this, I will then open the challenge to anyone. To review the arguments as originally presented, we first need to put these in the context of just what A-ThiestSocialist was arguing FOR: "1st Observation: I am arguing for theism, that is to say a rational God does exist. But further I am arguing for an only for the Christian God, as revealed by the holy scriptures." This should be carefully noted; it is now necessary for him to show how his arguments apply to the Christian version of God exclusively, and would exclude others. By the way, I'm going to skip a few points here which do not appear to be relevant to the question at hand - if you wish to see the entire original argument, it is, of course, still available for review. I agree that all need to be very careful to judge all arguments presented here, both pro and con, on their merit alone, and not with regard to whether or not they agree with anyone's existing beliefs. The arguments themselves were as follows: "I. The argument from abstract absolutes. 1. Abstract absolutes exist. 2. Abstract absolutes would still exist if man kind were to disappear. 3. Abstract absolutes existed before man. 4. Abstract absolutes can not have been created by man. 5. Something besides man must have created abstract absoultes. 6. The atheist world view of matter in motion cannot account for these absolutes. 7. The only tangible cause of this is God. Therefore, God exists." I should note here that by "abstract absolutes," A-ThiestSocialist seems to mean such things as the laws of physics. But regardless of the nature of the supposed "absolutes," the argument has a number of flaws, including several which are both major errors and fatal to the argument itself. Obviously, #1 is taken as a given; #2 and 3 are actually also assumptions, although clearly accepted ones, though #2 is irrelevant to the argument itself. #4 follows from #3, to be sure, but it's #5 where the serious problems first crop up. Line #5 - "something besides man must have created abstract absolutes" - is true only if we make the assumption that such things required a creator in the first place. There is an implicit argument here that "everything requires a creator." We'll get back to that in a moment. Line #6 introduces a phrase not previously defined - the "atheist world view of matter in motion" and makes a claim about that "world view" which is impossible to logically evaluate; it certainly has not been shown at this point that this world view, or any other, CANNOT account for such absolutes. The final line, #6, is essentially an "argument from ignorance" - it equates to "I don't know how else to account for these things, so it must have been God!" - clearly, this does not logically follow. But let's get back to that middle part, which is actually the most serious flaw in this and in many, many similar arguments which purport to "prove" God. In simplest terms, the argument winds up being: 1. Everything requires a creator. 2. God is the only known ultimate creator. 3. Therefore, God exists. The problem here should be obvious; the assertion that "everything requires a creator" is made first, and immediately following that an UN-created entity ("God") is introduced to explain existence. But what created God, if "everything requires a creator?" And if God did NOT require a creator, then how do we justify the first assertion? You can't have it both ways; either everything requires a creator, or it doesn't, and the moment you allow for the possibility for ANYTHING to exist withou being "created," you should stop with the first "absolute" thing you encounter rather than introducing the now-unnecessary additional entity. In fact, it is far more reasonable to assume that the "absolutes" in question (e.g., the "laws of physics" existed without a "creator" than to assume that God does, for reasons which should be obvious (but which we can get into later if need be). The second argument was: "II. The transcendental argument for the existence of God. 1. To prove or disprove God's existence requires logic. 2. Logic is perfect and absolute. 3. Logic is not conventional. 4. Logic presupposes God. 5. Arguing God's existence proves God's existence. Therefore, God exists." It was originally noted that this argument is "similar to" the first, although it is actually far, far worse off from the standpoint of logic. Nearly every line is an unwarranted assumption or undefined assertion - exactly what is meant by "logic is perfect and absolute" or "logic is not conventional," and how to these assertions logically relate to one another. Line 4 is clearly a non-sequitur - it has certainly not been shown that "logic presupposes God" at this point, and it is in fact fairly simple to demonstrate that this is, in fact, not the case. In fact, a very simple variant of this argument could be used to prove that God does NOT exist, and that in itself should at the very least raise strong suspicions that the entire structure of the argument is fatally flawed. (Hint: Line one could easily be interpreted as requiring that logic exist in the first place BEFORE God could exist...) It may be best to leave this one to die in peace, unless someone wants to try to prop it back up for another go. Let's move on to the third argument: "III. The argument from moral foundation. An atheist has no moral backing to prove something is right or wrong. In a world that is matter in motion, a high five is as wrong as theft." Hold it right there - this equates to the claim that an atheist cannot have a moral code; numerous counter-examples exist (there have very clearly been atheists who led lives which would have to be considered "moral" by practically any standard), and there is certainly no grounds for asserting that an atheist must believe that any two acts (a "high five" and a theft) must be equally "wrong." So we're off on shaky ground already. But, moving on, we see an argument as full of holes as the others: "1. Morals exist. 2. Morals are not conventional. 3. Absolute morals exist. 4. The existence of absolute morals does not comply with the atheist world view of matter in motion. 5. Only the theistic Christian God world view accounts for absolute morals. Therefore God exists." Again, several undefined and unsupportd assertions are made, followed by (as in the first case) an argument from ignorance. We are given no reason to believe that morals are, in fact, "absolute," that whatever their nature they are in conflict with the atheistic position, or that "God" is the ONLY possible explanation for their existing. We have certainly been given no reason to believe that the Christian model of God is the only one which could account for the existence of morals (it is interesting to note that practically all religions have very similar moral codes, so there does not appear to be anything uniquely assignable to Christianity here). The "argument" is really nothing of the sort, and is mere assertion. As all three arguments have been shown to be fatally flawed, I believe at this point it has been demonstrated that A-ThiestSocialst has NOT proven the existence of God, and certainly has made no argument which uniquely supports the Christan God alone.