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

"listed three factors for causing experiences. The human brain's susceptibility to overgeneralizing patterns, tricks of the eye/optical illusions/things of this sort, and even hallucinations. I did not state that this happened to EVERYONE, but that these would account at least for some." I was actually referring to the specific individuals my opponent is referring to you when he says that it accounts for some. Just because one can create an alternative does not make it so. "Your sarcasm is appreciated. It is very well known that anecdotal evidence is not evidence for scientists. I will explain why with the following arguments." I am not presenting a case to scientists. My burden is to merely show that my argument is VALID. According to your definitions, my argument is absolutely valid. I have experienced God, therefore God must exist. If God does not exist then there is a contradiction. This is an example of a valid argument. You have already confirmed that you do not have the available means to invalidate my experience, and therefore my argument. All your other points are merely tangential. ----------------------- 1. "Anecdotal evidence My point is that anecdotal evidence can not be passed as scientific evidence for many reasons. I will list them accordingly in an ABC format." I am very aware of the point my opponent wants to make, but it happens to be irrelevant. Evidence does not need to be scientific in order to be evidence (1). A. My opponent's defense of Macro evolution and the BBT can be used to defend the very notion he negates - since he IS arguing that many people use experiences to confirm the inference of God. If God is taken as a theory, certainly experience OF him only helps to validate this theory. Let me again remind my opponent that not all evidence is scientific. B. My opponent claims that evidence needs to be scientific. My opponent has not substantiated why such evidence needs to be scientific. ----------------------- 2. "Very untrue. I am not committing the appeal to consequences fallacy, but rather I am using the method of reductio ad absurdum [3]. This basically entails that if I assume your claim to be true, and come to an absurd (false/impossible) outcome, then by applying the law of non-contradiction this would make your claim wrong." My opponent in a valiant attempt to defend his argument against fallacy has incorrectly labeled his reasoning has reductio ad absurdum (2). First of all, my opponent must show that there is a contradiction in my premise, which he has not. Secondly, ghosts, aliens, and the like have neither been proven impossible nor proven false. My opponent has indeed committed the fallacy of consequences – whether he think it true or not. My opponent needs to remember that he needs to prove that my experience and remaining 6.5 billion experiences are invalid. God must exist in order for him to be experienced. God is experienced. Therefore God exists. How is this not a valid argument? A. You are committing the fallacy of consequences again. "The only reason why pseudoscientific claims such as these have fewer claims is because the likely naturalistic explanation for these sightings are dependent on several confining factors." Yeah because UFO's are only found in New Mexico! Or does my opponent want to admit that UFO sightings are not as confined as he seems to "contend." Fallacy notwithstanding, all the things he mentions are an infinitesimal speck in comparison to the overwhelming global phenomenon of God experience. B. The God of Christianity is the same God referred to in Islam – and I would contend the God of all religions. It is my conviction, however, that only one religion has the correct UNDERSTANDING of God. There is no contradiction when it comes to the basic notion of God. This point is a red herring. "Billions of people have experienced god with a subjective validation, which is a form of cognitive bias[4]. For example, when confronted with two coincidences, a person with a belief system they have will attribute these coincidences to their beliefs. This is why I bring up examples of Yu-Gi-Oh cards being magically found. A perfectly naturalistic explanation of finding that Yu-Gi-Oh card is that someone may have found it, and placed it in a convenient place. However (as this is a real story from my friend), a Christian can attribute this to God helping him find his card. Thus the subjective validation effect." My opponent has shown that subjective validation may be a part of one individuals belief system – that leaves billions more to go. Even still, however, his friend is merely confirming the theory of God through experience. My opponent has already stated that this is an appropriate way to confirm inferences. Also, the experiences that are more telling are those like Don Pipers, where he was pronounced dead at an accident and an hour later was prayed back to life by a Baptist minister(3). My opponent can create alternative explanations, but he cannot invalidate the claims because he has no means by which to do so. "The problem is that later on, people have experiences that they say confirms their own god. Obviously two or more of these gods can't exist at the same time, so which is it? If my opponent argues the first option, that people experience the explicit god, then this would defeat my argument, though he would have to somehow account for differing religions. However, if he were to argue that people would experience some god then later conclude into some religion, then that just shows how future experiences fall prey to the subjective validation effect." Let me create a helpful analogy that proves the absurdity of this reasoning. Three cavemen create fire. All three troglodytes start bickering over what to call the fire and what the exact color and heat of the fire is. My opponents reasoning would necessitate that we believe that fire does not exist because there are contradictions among the interpretations of those who experienced the fire. Such reasoning is absurd and fallacious. c. "When they are grown up at a young age being taught a certain belief system is true, they will believe it." This is not true at all (4). My opponent is still merely creating alternatives and hoping that they stick. He cannot just wave his hand and actually believe he has invalidated anything. Conclusion: My opponent has not proven my argument to be invalid. The majority of his argument is a mere tangential red herring. His definition of valid is "so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction." God must exist for me to experience him, I have experienced him, and therefore God exists. The conclusion cannot be denied when my premises are jointly asserted – this is the definition of a valid argument. My opponent has not invalidated any of the 6.5 billion experiential testimonies for the existence of God. He has merely stated possible alternatives. Also, my opponent has admitted that he cannot invalidate any of the personal testimonies because he does not have the means to do so. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://exchristian.net...