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

I would be glad to debate Skeptic again. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes ==================== My opponent appears to be dissatisfied with my expositional rebuttal to his appeals to the fallacy of division. So, here is my round three argument in syllogism: P1 - Logical absolutes are immutable P2 - Logical absolutes are abstract P3 - Logical absolutes are rational P4 - Immutable entities are transcendent (by impossibility of the contrary) P5 - Abstract entities are thoughts (by identity) P6 - Rational, transcendent, immutable thoughts require a rational, transcendent, immutable mind (by transcendental argument) C - Therefore, there exists a mind that is immutable, transcendent, and rational The fallacy of division states, "The object O has the property P. Therefore, all of the parts of O have the property P. " [1] For example: P1 - God is immutable P2 - God is transcendent P3 - God is mind P4 - Logical absolutes are a part of God C - Logical absolutes are immutable The fallacy of composition states, "All of the parts of the object O have the property P. Therefore, O has the property P. " [2] For example: P1 - Logical absolutes are immutable P2 - Logical absolutes are abstract P3 - Logical absolutes are a part of God C - God is an immutable mind These fallacies deal with objects and their parts, and are committed when erroneously transferring properties between the whole and the parts, even though certain properties by definition do not transfer in this way. These fallacies rely on the object and its parts already being known. In this debate, the object (God) is the desired conclusion rather than a known premise. To boot, his syllogism from round three omits premises from my arguments. Therefore, his appeal to these fallacies is refuted and my arguments from the previous rounds hold. Logic cannot simply be dismissed as axiomatic because TAG directly challenges this notion. The whole debate is about accounting for logic. The resolution implies my opponent can refute my argument for God's existence, so I show that God is the only means by each we can account for logical absolutes. His response is to say, "Nope, logical absolutes just are. " This is not a refutation by any means. It is ipse dixit. My opponent is begging the readers to accept logical absolutes as axioms so that TAG can be refuted. Hence, question begging. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes - Theism's Inability to Account for God's Existence/Attributes ==================== The straw man defense continues when my opponent says, "My opponent falsely believes these [logical absolutes, etc. ] are necessarily true of reality without question. " I urge the readers to review my arguments from logical absolutes. I used transcendental arguments to SHOW why these preconditions are necessary. He also asserts that I must show why logical absolutes are necessary. Once again, that was done in my opening round where I argued first for objective truth (to which he did not object). Then I argued that logical absolutes are necessary to obtain objective truth. It is either oversight or intellectual dishonesty on his part, but these issues have already been addressed. The rest of my opponent's statements here full under the non-uniqueness argument, which I address below. ==================== TAG - Uniformity of Nature ==================== >>>"Logic is a MAN-MADE creation. It is simply a language we as humans have constructed to reflect reality in a systematic manner. Logic does not dictate reality, reality dictates logic! This is why logic is descriptive of reality - it attempts to reflect the truth of the world. "<<< I already argued against logic as a man-made convention in my opening round, as it renders logic no longer absolute. Furthermore, this quote contradicts his earlier assertion that logical absolutes are axioms. He is pulling assertions about logic out of a hat and avoiding the issue at hand. If he refuses to account for logical absolutes or uniformity of nature, then he's arguing from an assumption that nature is what it is and all that there is. In other words, he is using as a premise the very thing TAG challenges. Hence, he is reasoning in circles. ==================== TAG - Existence of Objective Morality ==================== This debate is about the validity of TAG, which includes accounting for moral absolutes. Instead, he denies their existence. If he can achieve this, so be it, but I have shown that moral nihilism and its cousin, moral relativity, reduce to absurdity. Why is it wrong for me shoot Skeptic in the kneecap and steel his wallet? Is it because it inhibits societal function? Why is that wrong? Is it because it inhibits human evolution? Why is that wrong? I could go on, but these questions illustrate the futility of asserting why anyone should behave a certain way if there is no moral objectivity to which we can appeal. Without moral absolutes there is no right and no wrong, just opinion. My opponent says that refuting moral nihilism doesn't necessarily prove God. Oh, but I did so much more than that. I showed that morality MUST BE absolute through the impossibility of the contrary. Once we are left with moral absolutes, then we are charged with logically accounting for them, just as we did with logic. I used the same transcendental argumentation for moral objectivity that I did for logical absolutes. Since I have refuted my opponent's theories of morality, only moral absolutes remain. Since TAG has offered the only unanswered attempt at accounting for moral absolutes, TAG remains valid. ==================== Failure of TAG - Non-Unique Proof ==================== My opponent asserts that if TAG cannot prove the existence of a very particular kind of God with perfect accuracy, then it is invalid and cannot be true. This constitutes a straw man by essentially placing an impossible burden on TAG. I contend if TAG validly argues for the existence of God, and all attributes are consistent with the Christian understanding of God, then the resolution stands affirmed. Multiple gods cannot meet the precondition for immutability. Multiple gods constitute multiple minds, and TAG argues for a single immutable mind. Multiple differing god-minds cannot guarantee immutability in the same way human minds cannot. So, what about multiple identical God's with a single mind? If God IS mind, then multiple identical Gods of one mind would really just be multiple persons of one mind. Oh wait! That's the TRINITY! A deistic god that does not interact with reality cannot account for absolute logic and morality either. Such a God is inaccessible and would render logic and morality inaccessible as well. The God defined in this debate is personal and reveals himself to his creation. Thus, morality and logic are accessible, allowing us to account for their existence. A slightly less than omnipotent God would by definition be subject to his creation. He either has authority over reality or he does not. If he does not, then he is subject to logic and cannot therefore account for it. Thus, the necessary precondition for logical absolutes would be a fully omnipotent God. The same goes for omniscience. Only a fully omniscient God can account for logic, otherwise, his knowledge is subject to logic and cannot account for it. To conclude, TAG does a more than fair job identifying the unique God of this debate, certainly more so than atheism does at refuting TAG in general. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent has cited fallacies that do not hold and made several straw man attempts to invalidate TAG. I have refuted these attempts. Therefore, TAG is valid and the resolution is affirmed. 1. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... 2. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org...