Does God exist ? (part 2)

I appreciate my opponent's rapid response. Debate Parameters My opponent is reading too much into my rebuttal. I refuted his first contention by showing that it's not an argument for his position. I am not being disingenuous in asking him for an argument in favor of his position. After all, he was the one that insisted both sides have burden of proof. So, where is his proof? I simply reminded the readers so he wouldn't get away with leaving us empty handed, which he has so far done. Defense of KCA A caused universe doesn't necessarily means it was caused by another temporal universe There are no hidden assumptions, just a misunderstanding on my opponent's part. If the cause of this universe is indeed a temporal one, it need not be a universe itself. However, it stands to reason that the cause would occur from within one. Indeed, where else would a temporal cause exist if not within some universe. Note that, by universe, I simply mean some unit of existence. We live in a universe we call the cosmos. If a temporal cause outside of our universe is responsible for creating this universe, then it must be within a temporal existence that we can simply call, "some other universe." And if that existence is temporal, it had a cause, and so on. Seeking clarification on eternal objects If an existence has causes and effects, it is not eternal because--as I already stated--you cannot have an actual infinite of things. Time is, by definition, a series of cause/effects. Therefore, timeless existence that is mechanical (like a perpetual universe creating machine) would consist of an actual infinite number of causes and effects, which is impossible. If, on the other hand, a mechanical universe does not change, it is dead. It does nothing. It can't choose to do something, for it is mindless. Either way, a mechanical eternity is not a logical option. That leaves us with a personal agent. God, however, is eternally unchanging (per my definition). He is fixed. He does not consist of an actual infinite number of causes and effects. He just is. He does not change when he chooses to create a temporal existence. Given a personal creator, miracles are logically possible Yes, possibility does not mean actuality. Premise 5 doesn't argue for actuality, premise 6 does. The point is, once I've established the evidential necessity for a personal creator, then miracles can no longer be rejected on the grounds of being impossible. I simply establish that it's logically permissible so I can follow it with the historicity of the Gospels. Countering the bible is historical accurate My opponent may criticize Genesis until he's blue in the face, but that's not my argument. I am focusing on the historical likelihood that the resurrection was a real event. If the resurrection happened, then Jesus--who asserted that Genesis was accurate--was telling the truth. It's as simple as that. I agree that the link was a bit unfair, but I was running out of space. It goes like this: the Bible has great credentials over and above any other ancient document. Historians accept Plato's writings as being his actual writings, and there are far fewer available manuscripts than what's available for the Old and New Testaments. Furthermore, non-Biblical writers such as Josephus have verified several events depicted in the Gospels. Thus, from a historical perspective, it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospels are really the accouts of people claiming to have witnessed the resurrection of Christ. The question then becomes, were these people deluded or lying about what they saw. Unfortunately, it requires many more assumptions to argue that the resurrection was faked or fabricated than it does to accept that the event was real. Therefore, it is more parsimonious to accept the resurrection. Now, that being said, I'm not going to sweat it if my opponent disagrees here. Even if the readers aren't convinced that the resurrection occurred, I've still got the argument for a personal creator, which is enough to support my position. Furthermore, I have my next argument. Logical Argument for God's Existence I will now take this opportunity to make my second argument, the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG). The argument begins with the premise that truth is objective. Truth, being that which affirms reality as it is, is the desired goal of academic pursuit. Debate falls within this pursuit, and it stands to reasons that, if debate is not seeking objective truth, then it is a vain endeavor. For this reason, strong agnosticism and other forms of skepticism are refuted at the outset on the basis that they are self-refuting and lead to absurdity. The claim that truth is not objective is itself an objective truth claim and can only be true if it is false. To obtain objective truth, academic pursuit relies on the principle that logical reasoning, scientific induction, and moral obligation are all capable of attaining objective truth. In order to do so, these principles, which are often taken for granted, must be abstract and absolute, as anything else reduces to absurdity. If logical reasoning is conventional, then it cannot affirm anything more than conventional knowledge. If nature is not uniform, then science cannot affirm anything more than present observations. If morality is subjective, then it cannot affirm anything more than ethical suggestions. In short, unless these principles are universally binding and abstractly independent from human thought, all debate philosophically leads to utter skepticism. So, for debate to be intelligible, logic must be necessarily true, the universe must be uniform, and morality must be universally binding. TAG asserts that God (as defined herein) is the necessary precondition for these principles, and is proved via the impossibility of the contrary. This God is the only precondition that can justify immutable logic, uniformity in nature, and moral objectivity, for He is perfectly true, immutable, transcendent, righteous, holy, infinite, and so forth. Without Him, these principles cannot exist in the state in which debate requires them. That is to say, without God, logic becomes conventional, scientific induction becomes unreliable, and morality becomes mere opinion, which brings us back to the problem described in the preceding paragraph. The result is that any debater attempting to disprove God ultimately relies on principles that can only be justified if his/her position is wrong. To say it very succinctly, God exists because without His existence it is impossible to know anything. Conclusion I've offered two argument for God's existence. The first is evidential. It is not absolute proof, and not meant to be. It is evidence that should be compared with Con's evidence. If my evidence is more reasonable, then it should be in my favor. So far, my opponent has not offered evidence for his position, which he obligated himself to supply. My second argument is logical. It shows that God is the necessary precondition for everything my opponent would hope to use to prove me wrong. These two arguments, in combination, make a much stronger case than my opponent's. I sincerely hope he provides his own arguments in his next round.