RESOLVED: Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist

Introduction: I shall divide my argumentation into many objections upon the fundamental destructive groundwork of the opposition. He has failed to even remotely address my points with his reasoning. He is arguing as if this debate resolution stated that Biblically, the Christian God is more likely to exist. I have attacked this point in my scripture usage objection. He has also gone forward and has attacked logical reasoning. I must say I am disgusted. However, before I attack his points, I shall show the circular logic of his argumentation at small little points. Furthermore, the Scriptures state that God is infinite not because of attributes, but because he is (2). That is a fallacy of no proof and of circular argumentation. The universe is an attribute of God because he spoke it into his existence (Gen. 1). Do you let the Scripture override your usage of reason? The opposition has raised no points, and his groundwork are weaker than the soil accommodating the leaning towers of Pisa. Objection One: Existence is dependent on attributes §1 Affirm the following facts: (xΞ(a  b)) in the context of a God. Investigating the truth-values into this, it will necessarily follow that ~a or ~b necessarily necessitates ~x. This is a statement that necessarily holds true in regards to existence of a deity, whose results would necessitate the conditions defined in the beginning. For if x were in reality a and b, then one cannot say that since ~a is an affirmation, x can still be true. §2 With this axiomatic (xΞ(a  b)) proven, then one would look in regards at (xΞ(a  b)) in context to this debate. Since x is the predicate, and a and b are conditionals, then the denial of the conditional would deny the predicate. As defined, God (the predicate) necessarily presupposes all-good and omniscience. Since the second nature of God cannot be sufficiently disproven, one should dismiss it. But the all-good quality of God, that God is good, necessarily denies the axiomatic conclusion of the nature of the statement. For the second part of the statement is a conjunction, and conjunction demands “and” as a condition. §3 If I said “Jack and Jill went up the hill” but only “Jill” climbed the hill, does that necessarily affirm the proposition? Or if I said, "my homework exists if I did it and saved it on my computer" but in fact, I did do it, but forgot to save it on my computer, then isn't the proposition negated? This seemingly proves that existence, accordingly to definition, is dependent on the attributes of conception of the concept, or ways of perception. Objection Two: On Scripture Usage §1 Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet “Common Sense” famously articulated that: “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” How can the opposition simply believe that my arguments are refuted by what the scripture says? We are not in a church, neither are we in a Sophistic school. We are here debating. “The universe was created by God, according to the Bible” Then I ask you, what validity that Bible has in such a debate like ours. Objection Three: Defending the Mode-Substance Argument §1 How absurd it is to say that since a book says x, then x is real. As proven in my scripture objection, the scripture does not appeal to me. QUITE SIMPLY, I don't care about what the scripture says: if reasoning brings me to another conclusion, then I would simply have to follow that conclusion. With this said, lets analyze the claims of the opposition: Proposition 1. The universe is an attribute of God, because God created it Accordingly to what? The Scripture I fail to see how the Scripture is more credible than reasoning. For if the scripture said that 1+1=5, would you believe in it? Or if the word of God said the Earth is Flat, but every evidence proven states that the earth is round, would the scripture be correct? Departing from hypotheticals, the Bible states that Noah's Worldwide Flood is an actual event. Accordingly to what? The Bible. Why is it credible? Because it is the word of God. This is the logic the opposition builds on. Objection Four: Defense of the Problem of Evil and Morality §1 This comes back to the property, existence, and attributes dilemma. The opposition affirms that God did not create man perfectly “moral” and refers to Genesis 2-3. Then the opposition affirms that God may still be evil and exist; this is built upon two assumptions, that the definition of God did not include the all-good virtue, which is a lie. If the opposition affirms that the God he is talking about a God that may be evil, then we are not talking about the Christian God, which is the main point of this debate. The opposition has contradicted the definition, and if he were indeed trying to move the goalpost, then perhaps it would be sufficient to deduce the argumentation again, as it still remains thoroughly valid. 1. God is all-good 2. Evil exists 3. If Evil Exists, God either cannot stop (1) it from existing, (2) God does not want to, or (3) God does not know 4. If (1), then God is not omnipotent 5. If (2), then God is not omnivolent 6. If (3), then God is not omniscient Existence is built upon attributes, or at least in this case, it is so. §2 Again, the opposition has strawman-ed my argument. As all-good entails that morality is an innate priority, then it would be necessarily so that moral absolutist values have been given to us, before our birth, or by some divine being so good and great that it is infinite. The opposition again cites the Scripture. So God is all-good? Yep. Why does evil exist? Because man was not perfect when created. But if God were all-good, isn't our brain hardwired to admit certain moral truths? But the Bible doesn't say that. Why do you let the Bible control your reasoning? Because it’s the word of God. Wait, why does God not prevent evil? Because he does not want to. Then is God all good? This is the logic of the opposition's argumentation. Objection Five: Divine Experiences §1 How does one thing exist if someone has experienced it, and no one else? What proof does divine experiences provide us with? This question shall be addressed. §2 Firstly, a divine experience gives us no proof of God. It gives us perceptions of God, but not the existence of God itself. It in itself is a fallacious pseudo-argument, via using the fallacies of anecdotal evidence and cherry picking. I have indeed experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but how is that enough proof to say that He exists? Experience is not existence. Secondly, the significance of “anecdotal evidences” is non-existent. If the anecdote proves that God exists to the opposition, then so be it, but I fail to see remotely how the opposition thinks that this horrible ontological argument will even appeal to anyone. §3 Lastly, we shall do more to dismiss this horrible logical reasoning. I apologize to Aristotle for this syllogism on the behalf of the opposition. How can something, from one proposition, come to a conclusion when the proposition is not analytical? Objection Six: On Certainty §1 Perhaps it may suffice here to deduce some points that must be necessarily proven. How can one be certain at something? How can x be certainly true? Then let us take this argumentation. The nature of truth is subjective; the truth is not. Metaphysics, the study of the nature of a already deduced truth, i.e we exist, and our existence implies that we are living things, is naturally subjective. But that we live is objective. §2 With this said, let us easily wipe all of the opposition's faulty reasoning and absurd argumentation. Let us consider the opposition's pseudo-argumentation on his ghost premise. His ghost premise talks about the limitations of logical reasoning. Yes, it is true than some people do believe in ghost, others do not, but say x believed in ghost, and y didn't. Henceforth, it would then follow (on the basis of Aristotelian logic) that: P1. Some people believe in ghosts P2. People who believe in ghosts are y C. Some people are y If this is an attempt to prove the limitations of logic, then the opposition is failing miserably. For logical reasoning, especially syllogisms, is built upon the basis of two previously affirmed notions. It would follow that logical reasoning is completely analytical, or at least, syllogisms. For we are expanding on the notions that are already presumably true. §3 Apart from this, the absurdities of the opposition’s points are further raised up by the fact that he calls deductive logic inductive. He cherry-picks faulty syllogisms that shows nothing but the absurdities of his own reasoning. All his "logical arguments" are simply a set of propositions, not connected by each other, ready to be demolished by his further "attacks on faulty logic" that he conducts. §4 After affirming that since a syllogism is analytical, shall I take the final step to say that anything analytical is a priori via nature? For example, "my gold mine yields gold" or "my pie is made of bread" are analytical. Does one need to go into a gold mine to prove that it yields gold? A pie, via definition, is made of bread, so would we need to have experience eating pie to know this fact? The true question here is synthetic a priori and the possibility of that. Objection Seven: On Empiricism §1 What is the empirical? It is the reliance on science, on the studies of reality. What is the rational? The reliance on reasoning, and reasoning alone. If the opposition takes the affirmation of empirical evidences and how that can be the only proof of God, or of existence in general, then I wish him the best of luck. With this said, he makes the unscientific claim that God can be proven empirically, but does not follow it. CONCLUSION This resolution is negated. Appeals to emotion, circular logic, anecdotes and many other faulty sophistic reasoning provides for weak and absurd points.