Atheism or Theism

I want to remind the readers that Round 2 is to be used for opening arguments only, so I will not be providing a rebuttal to Pro's opening arguments until the next round.Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG) [1]Imagine two scholars convening to debate the existence of air. Both sides offer profound arguments and challenging cross-examination over whether or not air is real. Such a debate would be embarrassing for the debater attempting to prove air doesn't exist since its existence is a necessary precondition for him to debate in the first place. He would be a living contradiction whose argument could only be possible if it were wrong. By showing up to the debate, he's already lost.My opponent is like the man arguing against the existence of air. In defending atheism he has undermined his ability to rationalize his position. He has in principle already lost.The Presuppositional Conflict of WorldviewsTAG begins by recognizing that the existence of God is not proven in the same evidential way you might prove the existence of other things. All evidential approaches start from a position of neutrality and then "follow the evidence" to its proper conclusion. The problem is that there is no neutrality. Everyone is bias. We all have presuppositions [2] about reality.The proof of this is found in the problem of infinite regression. [3] To convince someone of a truth claim, we use other truth claims, which themselves have to be justified, and so on. As finite beings we cannot justify every proposition forever. The point at which we stop the regression is the point we commit ourselves to some kind of truth we consider to be self-evident, i.e., we presuppose its truth. The sum total of our presuppositions is called our worldview. This worldview becomes the basis by which we interpret the whole of reality.As a result, all evidential approaches to proving or disproving God's existence end up begging the question. We unconsciously examine the evidence for or against God in light of whether or not the existence of God is plausible in the first place. The existence or non-existence of God is ultimately a presupposition. This is why both sides can look at the same facts and consider it to be evidence to separate, incompatible premises.So when it comes to proving the existence of God, we have to take a different approach. In this debate, we have two worldviews in conflict: atheism vs. theism. TAG determines which worldview is more rational by eliminating the one that fails to meet the following criteria: The worldview accounts for the necessary preconditions of human experience. The accounts do not contradict the worldview's presuppositions. The accounts are not abandoned when the worldview is lived out. The worldview that meets all three criteria is more rational than the one that does not. In this debate, I will focus on three elements of human experience: logic, science, and morality.My opponent and I are both committed to the idea that logic, science, and morality are useful in determining objective truth. We take these things for granted in all our debates. But now my opponent can no longer take them for granted because I'm asking him to provide an account for logical laws, the uniformity of nature, and moral duties from within the atheistic worldview without breaking any three of the aforementioned criteria.Laws of LogicSo what gives logic its law-like nature? First, a logical law does not need to be experienced in order to be true. We don't have to test the laws of logic in every conceivable time and place in the universe in order to accept their universality. Second, logical laws are abstract, not to be found as objects in nature. Third, logical laws aren't subject to change or revision.Atheism cannot provide the necessary preconditions for the laws of logic, namely their universality, invariance, and immaterial nature without violating one of the criteria. To say the laws of logic are conventional, sociological, or material is to render them philosophically contingent, which is to say that the Law of Non-Contradiction, for example, could conceivably be untrue in some time, place, or world. But that is not how we treat the laws of logic. We treat them as abstract absolutes. Thus, this account violates the Criterion 3: atheists cannot live out what they claim. They will claim logic is conventional, but they will behave otherwise.If atheists do accept that logic is abstract and absolute, then they contradict the fundamental presupposition of atheism: the cosmos is all there is, ever was, or ever will be. The cosmos is neither abstract nor absolute, so it alone cannot account for logic. Thus, we have an internal conflict within the worldview, and atheism does not meet Criterion 2.The Christian worldview happily meets all three criteria. God is immutable, immaterial, and universal, so he accounts for the preconditions of logic without logically contradicting our presuppositions. As a result, Christians can behave like logic is abstract and absolute without abandoning our presuppositions.Uniformity of NatureThe necessary precondition for science is the uniformity in nature. On what basis does the atheist expect the future to behave like the past? 18th century philosopher David Hume argued that using past probabilities to answer the question involves circular reasoning since it would involve using the principle of induction to prove the principle of induction. [5] When it comes to the uniformity of nature, atheism fails on Criterion 1; they simply have no account.The Christian worldview, on the other hand, has no problem accounting for the uniformity of nature. Christianity presupposes that God created the cosmos and governs it. God is unchanging, so we can be confident that the future will behave like the past. They can do all manner of science without having to just assume science works or acting outside of their presuppositions.Moral AbsolutesThe most common objections to Christianity involve an appeal to morality: the problem of evil and suffering, the problem of eternal punishment, the problem of unbelief, and so on. All of these arguments criticize Christianity on the basis that it is an immoral philosophy.Such arguments rely on morality being objective, but once again, atheism cannot account for abstract absolutes. Atheists will say morality is a social convention or a product of evolution, but either response is to render it arbitrary. Atheists behave as though there are real moral absolutes when they engage in these kinds of arguments, but they cannot account for them, so again, atheism fails to meet Criterion 3.In the Christian worldview, God is good and is the standard of goodness. He is unchanging and immaterial, so we have the necessary preconditions for abstract and absolute morality. Furthermore, when we behave as though morality is objective, we are operating wholly within our presuppositions. Thus, Christianity once again meets all criteria.ConclusionThe readers are presented with two worldviews, and only one is going to be more rational than the other. The one that is more rational, therefore, is more likely to be true. Atheism fails to meet all three criteria in the critically important areas of logic, science, and morality whereas Christian theism upholds them all. In failing to meeting the necessary preconditions for debate, my opponent is like the debater that argues against the existence of air all the while breathing it in. No matter how logical, scientific, or ethically sound the debater was, he was wrong the moment he drew his first breath to speak.Atheism cannot be lived out, so theism is more probable than atheism.Sources http://www.butler-harris.org... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...