Atheism or Theism

I wish to thank my partner for his swift reply. In my first rebuttal, I will address some of the issues with KRF's problems for the existence of God.Observations1. Even if I accept the premises, the characteristics of God cannot be determined through TAG. This becomes a serious problem for my partner given the definitions that he has given for God.2. This argument cannot determine if there is only one God.3. This argument does not tell us who God is.Because of the 3 issues above, we should immediately reject TAG on those basis alone. However, I wish to respond further and prove how all of the basic premises of TAG are faulty.The Presuppositional Conflict of WorldviewsI have no qualms with what my partner has pointed out in this round. We do all have bias and we all indeed have conflicting worldviews. I concede this point.Laws of LogicMy partner begs the question. You do not say why this makes God's existence necessary. How does God account for logic? Just because God is immutable, immaterial, and universal; so what? What's the connection? I wish to argue that atheism accounts for the Laws of Logic the same way we would the laws of anything else; they simply exist and are necessary. What is a logical truth? Logical absolutes are true statements, but they are not the thing the statement is about. What are we to make of this? It means they are concepts, since there are no truth statements without a mind to think them. It's only the things true refer to that may not necessarily rely on a mind. Uniformity of NatureI believe my partner has asked a farily good question. Under what basis do we expect the future to behave like the past? It appears that my partner is correct that it is basically circular reasoning. As Richard Carrier points out: “Of course, even following Hume and Reppert, inductive reasoning is fundamentally circular for everyone, even for God. Everyone is in the same boat, theist or atheist. All one can do is posit a hypothesis (e.g. "God exists" or "Nature is consistently uniform") to explain the evidence (consistent uniformity) and then constantly test that hypothesis (so far, it has never been falsified, and has been abundantly verified). To accept this line of reasoning, all one need do is reject the groundless and self-defeating methodological principle "Maybe, therefore probably." And the theist is in no better position than an atheist here.”(1)Why is it that we can trust our past experiences? This begs the question: How can we trust our past experience? Why, because we live in a self-contained universe. Nothing that can come out and muddle the action of natural law on myself or my environment. I am fairly confident in saying that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, because the law of gravity will never suspend it. (2) Why Christianity Cannot Account for the Uniformity of Nature Once again, we beg the question under what basis does the Theist expect the future to behave like the past? Because God says so? Well, back to the original question: Which God? Why is the Christian God the only God that can account for such uniformity? I will now like to argue that the Christian God cannot account for this uniformity. Michael Martin, the author of The Impossibility of God argues: "...[C]hristianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated (these miracles incude: Jesus' resurrection, turning water into wine, and so forth). Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God.. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false." (3)What I am arguing is that based upon the presumptions that my partner has layed out in this division, the Christian worldview must be false because there is no uniformity in nature. What basis does my partner have in concuding that the future will behave like the past when, in the past, certain violations of the laws that we see today occured on a regular basis? This is question begging. Moral AbsolutesHere, my partner has intertwained the Divine Command Theory (DCT hereafter) in TAG. I wish to respond to this argument using the Euthyphor's dilemma; namely, is good and evil good and evil because God says so, or because it is already good and evil? There is a serious problem: If good and evil is good and evil simply because God says so, we beg the question under what basis does God determine the good and the evil? If it is subjective to God, then how can it be objective to us? If it is already good and evil, then there is no reason to conclude the basic premise of the DCT.Lets further concider the premises of the DCT. How does one determine these objective moral facts? Under what basis should we choose the Bible over the Quran, Book of Mormon, or any other ancient document that claims to be of divine revelation?Conclusion Even if we accept the presmises of TAG, we cannot conclude which God TAG induces. Likewise, there are fallacies and unanswered questions in all of the divisions of TAG. We are confronted with two opposing worldviews, and one is mor rational than the other. Theism fails to meet the critera that my own partner has listed above. To quote my partner, "[N]o matter how logical, scientific, or ethically sound the debater was, he was wrong the moment he drew his first breath to speak."I affirm the resolution. References 1. Quoted in the Meatros-Brain debate here: http://www.debate.org... 2. Ibid. 3. Martin, Miachel. TANG. http://www.infidels.org...