Does God exist ? (part 2)

It's always a pleasure to see a debate all the way through to its completion. I also thank all readers who patiently took the time to read through all the arguments and consider their merit. Defense of KCA Redefining what a non personal cause is Right off the bat, my opponent again mischaracterizes my statements. I specifically state that a Non-PFC "must either be doing the same thing perpetually or it must be doing nothing. " To go from that to, "If something is perpetual it is designed," is a clear cut straw man fallacy. I have used step-by-step logic to conclude the nature of a Non-PFC. A Non-PFC must: have no mind, by definition. remain unchanged in order to remain eternal and self-sufficient. There are two—and only two—options for such an entity: It does nothing at all, i. e. , it is dead. It is does the same thing over and over without decay, i. e. , it is perpetual. Any other option one might conceive would violate either one of the two criteria that makes a Non-PFC what it is. I have not redefined a Non-PFC to be a machine, that's just what it is. If it has no mind and does the same thing over and over again perpetually, then what else do I call it? Con's whole point here is to argue that perhaps the Non-PFC is not a machine after all, but he doesn't offer an alternative explanation. If it doesn't have a mind, how can it do something without being the product of some other entity? I have done everything I can to logically support my claim and Con keeps using red herring tactics to avoid its validity. First causes and what they cause My opponent is arguing semantics here. I said "to have a finite amount of things" and my opponent is emphasizing "to cause a finite amount of things. " It still begs the same question. What prompted the entity to cause the first thing? The only way it caused the first thing is if it changed. A counter argument Con literally copies and pastes my argument and replaces non-personal with personal. He is trying to show that the arguments apply equally to both. But I've already argued that is not the case. A personal entity has a mind. It thinks. It decides. It chooses. It acts. I have already exhaustively argued that doing the above actions does not change the entity's properties. Con ignores all my exposition in this regard in asserts the opposite without any supporting reasons. He just plagiarizes my words, swaps some terms, and hopes the readers will be gullible enough to consider it a proper counter argument. Defense of TAG Logic or The three laws of classic logic? Yes, the three laws of logic attributed to Aristotle are the kinds of laws I am discussing. Logic absolutes have to come from a perfect mind? A law is immutable, invisible, and universal. If a law is not abstract then it loses its immutability. If it is not absolute then it loses its universality. So, what worldview rationally accounts for abstract, absolute entities? The Christian Worldview presupposes a single unchanging, universal, rational mind and therefore accounts for the properties of absolute and abstract. Indeed, imperfect minds are able to utilize logic. But that's not the point. The point is, what makes logical laws universally binding to all of us? What makes them reliable with regards to attaining objective truth? So, while imperfect minds can rationalize, imperfect minds do not account for the laws of logic being universal and unchanging. God and Logical absolutes I did say, "To be absolute means to be objective and universally applicable to all beings. " That was a grammatical error on my part. "All beings" should have read "all people. " However, I think I context would have cleared that up since I later argued that God is not himself subject to logical laws. This argument is, once again, another straw man. I specifically stated that "logic is a property of God. " Remember, TAG deals with worldviews. Worldviews are collections of assumptions about reality. The Christian Worldview assumes God is rational and perfect. Therefore, logical laws are a property of His rational perfections. The goal is not to prove or disprove the relationship between God and logic. The goal is to show whether or not this assumption about reality accounts for human experience and remains internally consistent with the other worldview assumptions. TAG is not your typical approach to proving the truth of something, and that has left Con swinging and missing. But God nature is logic or God has the property of logic that's why God is bound to it God's existence is not bound to logic. To say that God cannot be both God and not God does not, remotely, make God dependent on logic, because it's Con making the statement, not God. Con is thinking rationally, and his statement of "God cannot be both God and not God" is true only if the laws of logic are reliable means to truth. Now, God does think rational thoughts, but that's because he's rational by definition. God is the assumption. I do not have to prove that God is not bound by logic because Christians simply assume it's true. The question is, do Christian assumptions account for the laws of logic more so than other assumptions? All people have worldviews. All worldviews make assumptions. (The reason is, as I've already stated, because no one can prove everything ad infinitum). But God is not dependent on logic absolutes for its existence TAG doesn't claim that logical laws are dependent on God. They are simply a property of God. God didn't create logic, he's simply logical by nature. TAG looks to account for logic, and that's a wholly different goal. To account for logic is to verify that logical laws are rationally consistent within the worldview. Well how do you explain/account for the existence of Logic absolutes? The God-of-the-Gaps defense does not apply as I freely admit that God is the assumption. TAG does not argue that God exists necessarily. It argues that for logical laws to be reliable, they have necessary attributes, namely being absolute and abstract. God is the worldview assumption, and since no other worldview can account for the necessary attributes of logical laws, it is the worldview most likely to be true. So, when Con says he is permitted to say that logical absolutes exist necessarily, he's really engaging in an ontological argument that TAG is not making. Conclusion I'd like to remind the readers of this debate's parameters. In Con's own words: I as the CON will present arguments that Gods non existence is more likely that its existence. My opponent as the PRO will present arguments that Gods existence is more likely than its non existence. I submit that Con completely backed out of his burden. Instead of presenting arguments that God's non-existence is more likely, he instead focused on simply trying to refute my arguments. Yet, his rebuttals are full of misrepresentations, redefinitions, and red herrings. I have argued for the existence of God in general using a form of Kalam's Cosmological Argument. I have also argued for the Christian God's existence using the Transcendental Argument. While at least one commenter feels I have not adequately argued for the God of Christianity, I must point out that my burden is only to show that God's existence (in general) is more likely than not. I simply chose to defend the Christian God in order to keep the debate focused and to avoid the fallacies that I personally feel plague other religious worldviews.