The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1A

A great debate this has turned out to be. I will start by listing the points that my opponent did not refute: 1. My argument (or syllogism) is, by definition, a valid one. That is, God must exist in order to experience him. I have experienced God. Therefore God exists. When the premises are jointly asserted the conclusion cannot be denied! This fulfills the burden of the resolution – a valid argument. My opponent needed to show that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, and he did not (1). 2. "False premise, you have yet to prove how instead of experiencing God, you experience what you perceive to be God or his workings. My opponent tries over and over to hit this point again, but it's obvious from the start that the main premise, that he is experiencing God, is what is at issue." I have hit this point over and over again because it is the center of the debate and my opponent is not addressing it. It was my burden to create a valid argument, and it is my opponent's burden to invalidate it. His confusion notwithstanding, he calls the premise false without ever proving it so. Indeed, he already admits that he cannot prove it false because it is not falsifiable! If a man states that while in the woods he heard a man screaming, I could create the alternative that perhaps he mistook the mating call of a wild moose for a screaming man. My creation of an alternative explanation does not prove his claim false; it proves I can create an alternative. Even IF one of my premises were false, which neither have been proven to be, it would not matter. Validity is a property of the argument's FORM and has nothing to do with its truth value (2). My argument is valid and my premises have not been proven false. ~Points that do not need to be refuted by I will anyways~ A. Falsifiability and Evolution/Big Bang "Of course, if he argues that scientific evidence mustn't be the criteria for proof, then of course falsifiability does not matter." Here is the number one definition of Proof from the American Heritage Dictionary and Dictionary.com: 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. 2. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. Proof, by definition, does not need to be scientific. "This is wrong in many ways. First of all, how exactly did my defense of Evolution and the Big Bang have anything to do with experience? I stated examples of how they were replicated, and reasons for their falsifications." Because they make inferences about the past and seek to confirm those inferences using past and present data. If a person makes the "inference" of God in their life, they use their experiences as evidence to confirm their God theory. "I've stated before, people do not experience GOD, but rather what they perceive/think is God. My opponent has yet to fulfill his burden of showing why people do not experience what they perceive to be God, but God himself." As I have already stated, my burden was to create a valid argument. It was my opponent's burden to invalidate it. God experience happens with such an alarming regularity by a dominating majority of the global population. My opponent has not proven any of these experiences to be false and he certainly has not proven that my argument is not valid – Which was his burden! B. Different types of evidence, and why scientific evidence is valid only My opponent tries to show that the only acceptable form of evidence is scientific. Dictionary.com, the first definition, states that evidence is 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. This is not limited to scientific data. My opponent tries to argue that logic is not really evidence. It most definitely is evidence when we use the traditional definition of evidence. "Of course, the contention is that NO, you do not experience God, but what you experience what you perceive to be God. This is my opponent's burden to show otherwise." My burden is not to prove that they do not experience something else, it is present a valid argument. My opponent has a very heavy burden and is now trying to shift it onto my shoulders. He did not prove that my experience was a mere false perception; therefore HIS burden of falsifying the premises is unfulfilled. -------------------------------- A. Reductio ad absurdum "An appeal to consequences fallacy is when one asserts the truth claim of a premise by based on it's consequences. If P, then Q will occur. Q is undesirable. Therefore, P is false [3]." Which is precisely what my opponent did. "Instead, what I've been stating all along, is that "if your argument is true, it will validate X, but we know X is not true, therefore your argument is false". There is a clear difference between these two concepts." My opponent is egregiously wrong here precisely because we do not "know" X to be false. Therefore he IS essentially saying that because X is undesirable therefore your argument is wrong. Even still, it is improper comparison because he is using very small minorities of people, when I am dealing with vast majority of the global population. "My argument still stands. Any rational scientist will tell you that anecdotal evidence for UFO's and Bigfoot is farce, and until real evidence comes along, these argument should be thrown away." argumentum ad verecundiam B. conflict of religions "he has yet to show how the experiences of those people are of a god, and not what they perceive to be a god, and (b) that he has yet to refute my claim that subjective validation is the cause for many of these personal experiences people cite as evidence." My opponent has made claims without proof. I need not try to disprove his claim, it is his job to disprove mine. It was my job to make a valid argument – which I did – and it was his job to invalidate it, which he did not. C. Young Children I have already shown that the vast majority of youth believe because of their experiences (3), their upbringing notwithstanding. D. Caveman analogy The analogy shows that people can EXPERIENCE the same PHENEMONON and come out with different interpretations. That was the point. So your conflict between religions is a moot point. --Conclusion— My opponent did not refute the most fundamental points! My argument is absolutely a valid argument and he never invalidated it. I fulfilled the burden of the resolution and my opponent did not succeed in any proper refutation. He tried to show that one of my premises was false, which he both failed to do and failed to understand that it would not matter anyways. Thanks for reading! Sources: 1. http://philosophy.hku.hk... 2. http://www.jimpryor.net... 3. http://www.csmonitor.com...