God exists. You can't escape it. (TAG debate)

Intro I had to drop 3 areas of the debate because I had to waste so much space on restating my arguments and pointing out to Con that he is accusing me of fallacies that I'm not committing, which he would realize if he would just read my posts carefully. Fallacies False Dichotomy Con still does not understand the argument from the IC. He still thinks I'm asserting that my position is true If I can refute 1 position. I've explained this in my last post. "Impossibility of the Contrary" doesn't make sense? Anything that is not CW is contrary to it. It's either A or not A. Argument form IgnoranceI told Con to reread my first 2 posts for the accounting of the 4 topics. He is still wrongly claiming that I have not provided it. Here it is:Round 1 - under "My Position", after the Bible verses. Round 2 - under "My Argument", after I listed the 4 areas of the debate Obviously Con rejects the CW's accounting, but that's irrelevant. The CW accounts for them whether Con agrees with them or not. Con has yet to give an account for any of them, as I will continue to demonstrate. I'm not however claiming that because Con's position can't, that it automatically follows that no other worldview can't either. If I refute Con's position and succeed in my goal to show Con that he is actually ultimately dependent on the CW to prove his point, then this is just 1 demonstration of my argument. I welcome Con or anyone else to offer a different view to refute my claim that NOTHING ELSE CAN. This claim is consistent with my position since my position claims to have come from an ULTIMATE and absolute authority. Con rejects it, but he does so according to his own worldview where it is presupposed that an absolute personal being does not/can not exist. Why does he assume LA then? Wouldn’t he have to argue from ignorance to prove them? Strawman "Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world.[1]" (2) If Con does not agree with any part of naturalism then he can just say so instead of accusing me of strawmanning him to invalidated my argument. Con knows that if he provided his specific views then I wouldn't have had to generalize. Con's goal is questionable, It seems like he is just trying to win the debate and not really engage in an informative discussion. I hope the readers will take the time to read both our posts carefully so they can judge who is committing fallacies. Atheism Con is the one who's been misrepresenting me through out the debate. When did I assume that all atheists necessarily agree on morality? My claim is any atheistic view of morality, when followed to their logical conclusions, reduces morality to subjective, arbitrary ideologies. My argument requires for my opponent, whatever view they hold, to actually state their view and dialogue with me. Con simply asserts that I'm wrong and lists views that he thinks prove his assertion but does not give arguments on how they do. Again, atheism (lack of belief in God) automatically holds implications on the most basic things, ie. morality, LA, knowledge and nature. Morality a. Con's references to the "many Christians" and a "prominnent Chrsitian philosopher" are still fallacious, invalid and futile. What good does it do to quote somone I don't agree with? Should I quote Dawkins on how he thinks there is no absolute morality or meaning in life then? b. Yes I assume that God accounts for morality because he revealed it to me (and to all). How is that not accounting for morality? Because Con rejects it? That's precisely why he's an atheist. Again, my point here is not to prove that MA exist, but to show that any one who rejects it is irrational when he appeals to it and that any one who does accept that MA exist must have a rational basis for it. c. I am arguing any non-Christian view of MA when followed to their logical conclusion is inconsistent, arbitrary and irrational. Con seems to expect me to prove them all wrong during the debate instead of him presenting what he thinks will refute this claim and having a dialogue. If Con want's to show me that other views can account for MA then why won't he? He's the one who is simply asserting. I have provided the CW basis for MA and I'll provide it again while refuting the Euthyphro dilemma: The Euthyphro dilemma is a FALSE DICHOTOMY. Here is an analogy, The question, “who will be the next Michael Jordan?” is often asked in the NBA. A lot of players (like Kobe, Lebron) are compared to him and gauge it by how "Jordan-esque" they are. Now did Jordan himself have to perfectly achieve this "Jordan-esque" game or did he arbitrarily decide and told players that a certain way of play is "Jordan-esque"? The answer is neither. Jordan-esque is in Jordan's very nature. He plays the way he does (Jordan-esque) because he's Jordan. His style of play is what became the standard for being "Jordan-esque". Likewise, there are no absolutes outside of God. God's very nature is the standard for good. Anything that is contrary to God's nature is automatically wrong. And God revealed this to us, this is how we know what good is. Epistemology CFYou misunderstood me and stated that I said that FB are unavoidable. What I actually said was that proving that FB are true will result in an unavoidable circular reasoning. Ie. "While this is true, a crucial feature of CF is that only beliefs which are rock-solid are foundational." How exactly did you prove that FB are rock-solid without first assuming that they are? Epistemology deals with how we know what we know, CF just tells us that we know universal absolute truths, and does not actually explain how we came to know them. RE 1. RE conflicts with evidenliasm? In RE evidences should AFFIRM revealed truths. The problem is you're fallaciously assuming that these revealed truths could be false. 2. The Great Pumpkin objection assumes that RE is false to begin with. RE is the view that THE absolute supreme creator God who can’t lie, was the one who did the revealing. 3. Non-belief is accounted for in CW Romans 1:18-21 "...who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." LA Yet again, Con misread and misunderstood my points and somehow thought that: 1. I am "talking about LA as the nature of existence". Was this a typo? Because I certainly do not agree that LA are the nature of existence. 2. I am arguing that LA could be false. I was actually arguing that unbelieving worldviews have no rational basis for LA since they can't account for them, and actually borrow from the CW to contradict it. I don't know if I understood it right, but I think Con is claiming that LA are FB? I already addressed this in round 2 under "Knowledge". This is exactly what the argument is about, Con can not account for LA, he presupposes them. Saying that they are FB is begging the question. Just like how God's nature is the standard for morality, God's mind is also the standard for rationality and logic. He is not bound by them. God created us in His image and we are to think after His thoughts to be rational. Uniformity of Nature God created and governs the universe as I have already stated. Con has yet to give any rational basis for the uniformity of nature and induction. Conclusion "Why can’t I just assume that atheism is necessarily true" I am trying to show you that you do. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)