Logic Analysis: These arguments prove the existence of God.

I look forward to a great debate! _________________ PRELIMINARIES: The amendment to the definition of God accepted, certainly; but I object to one of the other definitions my opponent provides. If he is putting it forward as a definition, for me to accept the following: "The Bible is the word of God and all scripture is valid. (2 Timothy 3: 16)" is tantamount to conceding this debate. The reasoning runs thus: The Bible is the word of (written by) God; The Bible is valid (true); If the Bible was truly written by God, and the Bible exists; then God exists. The Bible exists. Ergo, God exists. This is correct, if the premises are correct. However, a variation of these premises is the whole point of this debate. Accepting this definition will allow circular reasoning at the expense of losing all value for this debate. For this reason, and as the only source my opponent has quoted to establish this is the Bible itself, I reject this definition. I will treat this as my opponent's first underlying assumption for this debate, rather than a binding definition. -------- One question: My opponent references Thiessen for most of his points. I confess my ignorance as to who exactly he is referring to, or in which of his works I may find these points. For my benefit, and the audience, could my opponent please clarify this in his next round? ________________ REFUTATIONS: "Contention 1: God has revealed Himself to man in theophanies. " Subpoint A) General Revelation: This is found in nature, history, & conscience. He is revealed in nature by its existence, continuity, and preservation. He is revealed in history by His dealings with the children of Israel. Finally, He is revealed in our conscience by feelings of a presence within one's heart. " This statement gives me little to work with at the moment; I'm not quite sure how my opponent believes he can make a proof, or even a strong probability, out of subjective experiences. I must wait for my opponent to develop this further before I can do much; however there are two points that, even at this stage, I can contend. "He is revealed in nature by its existence, continuity, and preservation. " Translated: God exists because the universe exists? As long as there is even one other possible explanation for the existence of the universe, this argument is a non-sequitur. "He is revealed in history by His dealings with the children of Israel. " If you are basing this on the Old Testament, you have the same problem I deal with below, subpoint B. If you are not, then I assume that you have found another account of Israeli history, contemporary with King David, Moses, Job, Abraham, etc, that does not claim to be written by God? "Subpoint B) Special Revelation: Those acts of God whereby He makes Himself and His truth known at special times and to specific peoples. " Under this heading, my opponent posts a list of references to the Bible; a list of theophanies taken directly from his source. The problem is that these are ultimately irrelevant to the contention. If the Bible is true, then God exists; and there is no need to discuss physical appearances. If the Bible is not true, then we can discount everything it says about God; theophanies included. Either way, this list is superfluous. "Contention 2: The belief in the existence of God is corroborated in arguments. Subpoint A) Cosmological: Everything begun must have had an adequate cause. (Thiessen) Subpoint B) Teleological: Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. (Thiessen) Subpoint C) Ontological: There must be something greater than man. (Thiessen) Here is the meat of my opponent's round. These are the arguments I hope to see my opponent develop; most of his other contentions will take us into a debate on the reliability of the Bible, for which I submit we simply do not have space. His entries are just placeholders for the real arguments. My refutations will have to wait, as I do not know how my opponent intends to argue any of these. In the meantime, here are links to each of the arguments he brought up: A. Cosmological (argument from cause) . http://plato.stanford.edu... B. Teleological (argument from design) . http://www.iep.utm.edu... C. Ontological (argument from definition) . http://www.iep.utm.edu... As I see it, this is the only contention that my opponent has any chance of affirming the resolution with. He has not yet argued these points; I strongly urge him to do so in his next round. All of his other points depend directly on the integrity of the Bible, which depends on the existence of God. They are, and can be, of no help to him in proving God's existence. Contention 3: Scripture confirms the existence of God. This contention is an exercise in circular reasoning. I have dealt with this line of thinking twice already this round; but for complete clarity, let us look at it one more time. The Bible says God exists, as demonstrated by my opponent's references. The Bible says that God revealed/spoke/wrote the Bible. The Bible says that God cannot lie. Therefore the Bible is true. Therefore God exists. Alternately, it can be put this way: We know God exists because the Bible says He does; We know the Bible is true because God revealed/spoke/wrote it. These statements commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and cannot be used to prove anything. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... ________________ CONCLUSION: My opponent's first and third contentions do not prove God's existence. In fact, they are both dependent on God's existence to be logically valid; and his third contention is an example of circular reasoning even then. He has not yet argued his second contention. I look forward to seeing his development of these classical defenses of God's existence in his next round of arguments. To my opponent then, with thanks.