The Christian God VS Everyone else: Morality, Logic & Reason and Epistemology.

"The God of the Bible exists and this why and how universal moral absolutes exist." If it is accepted as a valid to simply state an assumption and then draw a conclusion, then the rebuttal to this is as simple as - The God of the Bible does not exist, and this is why and how (insert desired moral stance here) ... "My opponent argues that morality is a convention among men, not unlike the rules of grammar. This means that morality is culturally relative, and arbitrary." More specifically, I would assert morality, being defined as the behavior which categorizes decisions as being right or wrong is an evolutionary development. "Since it is arbitrary, he has no real basis for defining something as good or evil to create this conventional standard to begin with. And since, it's culturally relative, He has no valid reason to condemn the culture of the Nazi society." Consider the following : Is there a Bible which can be referred when there is a dispute among scientists - no. Is it then a valid assertion to state that all conclusions are arbitrary? Science as a body of knowledge obviously progresses, it does not simply wander in circles with arbitrary decisions endlessly diverging - thus this assertion, as a general principle fails. Or lets look at something a lot more subjective. As there is no Bible which notes what is or is not art, does this mean that it is pointless to support the arts because it is all arbitrary and you might as well just decide in a random manner to encourage any activity with no way to quantify talent in a young child and encourage them to focus on that area as they show signs of an emergent artistic genius. Is there really no way to judge the wit and humor of Tom Arnold vs George Carlin or the acting ability of Megan Fox vs Hilary Swank, all such decisions are completely arbitrary without asking God? "God's very nature is the standard of morals. God is perfectly good, everything He says and does are good and everything else that contradicts his nature is automatically evil. Godlessness is evil." If this is true, then the immediate question which shows the nature of the problem here is - 'If God told you to [insert some extreme action here] you would happily and cheerful do it with full confidence it was moral?' Now it is clear you can not reject this action by saying, 'God would not do [insert some extreme action here].' because what is good and moral is simply defined only by what God does. If you say for example, 'Well God could not lie.' this means you have an external framework which you are applying, you have decided God can not lie and you would reject something which is lying as being not God. If you were to say 'God has said he can not lie.' this again means that God has acknowledged that morality is not what is the nature of God but what constrains the nature of God. The question then becomes what compels him not to lie, how is lying decided to be immoral? If he simply decided not to lie how is that any less arbitrary than if anyone decides not to lie as they consider it immoral? "He claims that the laws of logic are not absolute but instead, are also conventional, or agreed upon." They are not agreed upon, there is considerable contention about the various frameworks, though yes, I would assert they, like language, are simply evolutionary constructs. One obvious indication of this is that as our mathematical ability increases we invent new logical frameworks to solve problems which could no be solved in the existing ones. This is no different than the various number systems, natural, rational, irrational, imaginary, which ones are the absolute and true numbers? Note we thought we knew that each time we had a particular set only to find some very clever person could define a new set and use it to produce very interesting results. "For example, how do we conclude that the produced system of logic is indeed logical?" A system of logic can not be assessed as logical, that is like asking if a defined number system contains numbers, they obviously do and it is by definition. A system of logic is evaluated by its utility, i.e, what, if applied can it produce. "I hold the position that the laws of logic are universal and absolute." Which laws are universal and absolute? "If we follow the logical conclusion of this world view, it would mean that, we gain knowledge by experience and observation, using the laws of logic, which our minds produced by experience and observation, using the laws of logic, which our minds produced by experience and observation..." Exactly, and this process is not, again, a divergent arbitrary wandering path. For example : 'An Adaptive Filter Based Fuzzy Logic Controller Incorporating MTPA for IPMSM Drives' (Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/KESE.2009.63 ) Quote : 'A fuzzy logic controller (FLC) for the IPMSM drive has been found to maintain high performance standards with a much simpler and less computation implementation.' Fuzzy logic is a logic which rejects the classical law of the excluded middle. If logic is an absolute, then which one of these systems is the absolute one (fuzzy or classical) - they can not both be as they contradict each other. "The universe was not illogical before the alleged evolution of the thinking man." Our current best understanding of the nature of the universe comes in the form of Quantum Theory, which certainly defies classical logic - so again what system of logic applies to it? "The Christian's ultimate authority is God, while the non-believer's ultimate authority is himself, making himself his own God." It would not follow if one rejected God that they would assume a complete supreme ego centric viewpoint. Just as an individual could decide to give themselves to the will of God, an individual could decide to give them self to the will of another person, or group of people. I would end with a series of questions : 1) How do you know know God exists and how do you know his nature is moral? 2) What could you experience which would falsify this belief?