Existentialism

Re: Transcendental ArgumentPro asserts that we can rewrite the laws of mathematics and logic, but he offers absolutely no evidence for this claim. We can call numbers by different names, but that has no impact on whether or not those numbers still add up the same way. It is metaphysically impossible for things like spherical cubes to exist, for 2 + 2 to add up to 5, or for the law of non-contradiction to be false; to claim otherwise is to blatantly deny reality and the laws which all things everywhere in the universe are bound by. Such logical and mathematical absolutes are not merely human constructs-- they transcend the physical world. Regardless of whether or not anything else exists, it remains the case that violating such absolutes is metaphysically impossible, for they are non-cognitive and a priori in nature. Logical absolutes do, indeed, exist. Pro further claims that we cannot automatically attribute the existence of these logical absolutes to a transcendental mind (i.e. God), but I do not see him offering an alternative explanation. Under an atheistic framework, there is literally no basis whatsoever for the existence of logical absolutes; materialism does not allow for such abstractions to exist. These transcendental laws are purely conceptual in nature, which leads us to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that they were created via conceptualization by a similarly transcendent mind: God. Pro has not really refuted this argument at all. Pro also goes off on some off-kilter rant about how subjective my logic is, but that's just the point-- it's not subjective. Logic is objective, and by engaging in this debate, Pro is implicitly conceding that.Re: Fine-Tuning ArgumentI'm rather confused, as it seems that my opponent has seemingly dropped this argument entirely. He briefly mentions something about the "multiverse", but seeing that he has not actually presented any evidence for it, we can easily dismiss it. Via Occam's Razor, the God hypothesis actually explains the apparent fine-tuning of the universe much better because we only have the assume the existence of a single supernatural being, whereas for the multiverse we have to assume the existence of an infinite number of universe. By failing to rebut this argument, Pro is fully conceding that God exists. God's existence is problematic for existentialism because, being the creator and sustainer of the universe, he gets to set the rules of the game-- he serves as the ultimate objective standard, which totally undermines the subjectivist/nihilistic context of existentialism.Re: Moral Sense TheoryPro misses the point of this argument entirely. I showed that almost *all* human beings have shared fundamental moral intuitions; the few who don't are regarded as sociopaths, and are universally hated by the rest of humanity. The entire world functions off the assumption that morality and justice do exist in some form. Pro keeps asserting that all morals are subjective, yet I clearly demonstrated that most moral disputes and ideological disparaties are simply different interpretations of the same moral code. There are very few who are willing to say that they do not value innocent human life, that they believe people should be allowed to break their promises without retribution, or that getting rich by abusing the poor is justified. A universal moral sense exists, thus even further refuting the subjectivist context of existentialism.Re: Secular Ethics I literally have no idea what Pro is talking about, here. I didn't say anything about God "controlling" people... Pro's ranting is tediously long, incomprehensible, and totally irrelevant. Btw, "God is not Dead" was simply a fun-sounding contention header. Nothing more. I don't think Pro even mentioned Kantian ethics or libertarianism in his argument... I'm not sure what to say..== CONCLUSION ==Pro has done *nothing* to refute my case. It remains established that God exists, that a universal moral sense is shared among human beings, and that moral realism is true. All three of these completely undermine existentialism, and Pro has completely failed to give an adequate response, instead just asserting how subjective everything is and going off on random rants which have nothing to do with the substance of my argument. The resolution is negated. Existentialism is almost certainly false.